# First time out, now need suggestions for my P2



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

I had my first singletrack ride yesterday at Sherman Branch outside of Charlotte, NC - and had a great time aside from my lungs exploding and my thighs becoming mush and the random comment about not having a helmet from folks on the side of trail. :madman: Didn't make it to the lake loop, just did the roller coaster (and I want to go SS?!?) and the main loop. All in all it was a blast, and now that I can breathe again, I'm preparing for the next outing.

Aside from getting myself a helmet and some gloves, I'm seriously wanting to ditch some weight on the bike - its a stock '04 P2, and although it has been fine for riding to work and screwing around a bit, I can see where the fork needs to be upgraded for something lighter and more effective. 

I'd love any suggestions you guys have for me as a beginner, and any advice about making the P2 a better bike, especially in the weight and fork departments!
:thumbsup:


----------



## Kaba Klaus (Jul 20, 2005)

Beginning case of upgrade fever... Best to do some shock therapy: Buy a new bike. It costs less than upgrading. Start saving now. Don't even think of financing/credit cards.

This is a Specialized P2 04, right? If so - this bike was designed for jumping and screwing around, not for trail riding. Yes, you can take it on a trail, but the components of the bike are built to survive hard landings - not for efficient or fast XC riding.

Weight: 

Reducing the weight you need to get to rotate makes the most impact. Lighter tires, tubes and wheels provide the most noticeable improvement per $$ spend. Start with lighter tires and tubes.

Fork:

Try tuning the fork first. Talk to a bike shop. Adjusting the damping, maybe changing the coil spring might make all the difference you want.


----------



## b-kul (Sep 20, 2009)

do all you want but you will still have a frame that is not designed for what you are doing.


----------



## nyczbubba (Aug 27, 2010)

Everyone here will just about tell you to upgrade and get a new bike. I was in your shoes too. Then I realized if I were to spend the money to upgrade I could of gotten a new bike for the same price. So I opted and bought a new bike and never been happier and would do it all over again.


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

Everything on your P2 is going to be heavy. You'ld be better off looking for a decent used XC bike for your singletrack rides. There's no reason you can't ride your P2 on singletrack, and certainly there are things you can do to make it lighter, but ultimately you will end up spending a lot of money and the bike still won't be great on singletrack. It can still be a very fun bike to ride, so I'm not saying you should get rid of it, just don't spend a bunch of money trying to make it into an XC bike.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Ok, I'm here for education, so what is the difference between the geometry of the P2/3 and a hardtail AM, or hardtail FR? One of my buddies has an '08 Transition Vagrant frame and it certainly looks similar, as does the current p3 AM model (aside from the standover height.)

What are the critical differences, etc? I'm obviously not experienced in this stuff, but there seems to be a lot of grey areas/blurring across MTB genres when it comes to hardtail bikes...

What is the weight of the '04 P2/3 frame anyway (aluminum) - and at what point is a frame heavy/light?

TIA for the info!


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

eimkeith said:


> Ok, I'm here for education, so what is the difference between the geometry of the P2/3 and a hardtail AM, or hardtail FR? One of my buddies has an '08 Transition Vagrant frame and it certainly looks similar, as does the current p3 AM model (aside from the standover height.)
> 
> What are the critical differences, etc? I'm obviously not experienced in this stuff, but there seems to be a lot of grey areas/blurring across MTB genres when it comes to hardtail bikes...
> 
> ...


A DJ bike typically has short chainstays, really short seat tube (low top tube), and is designed for shorter travel forks. Head tube angles are slacker than XC, but not near as slack as freeride. You're right in that there are a lot of grey areas though. 
A typical aluminum DJ frame probably weighs between 5 and 6 pounds, but that's just a guess. Compared to typical Aluminum XC frames that typically weigh between 3.5 and 4.5 pounds. The frame weight is only a part of your weight issue though. A DJ bike in the same price range as your bike generally comes with a really heavy fork, wheels, and crankset. Replacing all of these gets to be expensive.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

OK, so I've been doing my due diligence, lots of research, learning about head and seat tube angles, effective top tube lenghts, chain stay lengths and the effect seat tube angle has on the way a short chain stay affects a frame's performance, etc. 

I'm wrapping my head around stack and reach right now, as well as making a spreadsheet on frame geometries of other hardtails that are considered successful in design and how that compares to the P2 (same aluminum frame as P3.)

What I'm getting so far is that my 2004 P2/3 Long frame seems to resemble the short version of several current AM frames, if used with a longer travel fork. (I'd love to pass along my comparison spreadsheet if anyone is interested) This is why I am currently up to nostrils in reading about stack and reach - determining if the frame is still suitable for me (5'11", 31" inseam) as an all-around screw-around bike.

Tonight, I'm working on understanding what expanding the cockpit on a short-wheelbase bike (by sliding the seat back on its rails the way I currently ride it, and going from my stock 40mm long neck to a 60 or so) does for handling and the riding experience. I can comprehend that going longer travel on the fork slackens my head angle, which is stock at 69.5 on a 100mm fork - that seems ok - but it also seems to reposition my COG rearward over the rear tire more by increasing the effective seat tube angle in addition to my sliding the seat back on its rails...

My aim is to go from 1x9 to singlespeed with this bike, and as such I've been trying to ride it in the rings that correspond with the 32/36front 18 rear I'd like to use. I mention this because I'm standing up to climb, even at Sherman Branch (hey, I'm new at this), and off the rear of the seat to descend, so it is possible that the standard XC comparisons may not be applicable for what I'm doing?

What am I doing? Whatever it is, it has captured my attention for several days now, even without riding the bike. 

Tomorrow night, I'm tearing down the bike to find out exactly what the frame weighs, since I cannot find that info on the internet...

Someone jump in here and teach me something, I'm interested!


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

OK, so unless I'm really screwing something up, it seems that my '04 P2 frame is essentially a lower BB, shorter wheelbase, variation on my business partner's '08 Vagrant - a little over 1" shorter wheelbase, 1/2"shorter reach, 15mm lower BB (this assumes the maximum CS length for the P2, which is the same for the Vagrant.) The HA on the P2 is about a degree steeper, and the seat tube is about 0.5 degree steeper also.

It would stand to reason that the cockpit could be made to feel similar by adding 10mm to the stem and keeping the seat in the rearmost position if I felt the need for more room (?)

Anyone want to look over my shoulder regarding the math? I used the online geometry calculator and spec data from several manufacturers (all of which probably should be verified for accuracy, as well as my deductions/interpretations.) For the P2/Vagrant comparison, I ran the calculator on both with a 100mm fork, and a 160mm fork to get a good idea of the similarities and descrepencies between the two frames.

I'm thinking this frame could be configured/used similar to the intended use of the Vagrant - an all-arounder, leaning into AM/FR? Then again, the HA is still a degree steeper...


----------



## CuzinMike (Jul 6, 2010)

I'm not an expert on geometry or this bike in any way, but the biggest issue I'm seeing is the seat tube length. Unless the current model has changed a lot, even the Large frame of that bike only has a seat tube that's a bit more than 13". Great for jumping and park riding, but you'd need an enormous seatpost to get your saddle anywhere near where you'd want it for pedaling through singletrack. 

I would guess by your inseam that you'd need a frame with a 17 or 18" seat tube for your purposes.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Yeah, I was wondering if there was such a thing as extra-long seat tubes...


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

eimkeith said:


> Yeah, I was wondering if there was such a thing as extra-long seat tubes...


I put a 400mm seatpost on my DJ bike to see if it would allow me to ride it seated occasionally, but once you look at the bike with a foot of seatpost exposed, it just looks too scary to ride like that on trails (ok to ride to the trail like that though). And with my 12" frame, even a 400mm seatpost with a foot of exposed seatpost (the max for that post) was still 2 to 3 inches below my normal seat height for riding trails. Also, since the seatpost is longer than the seat tube, you cannot slam it completely if you want (like if you wanted to hit some dirt jumps). 
So, yes you can get longer seatposts, but they aren't without problems.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Yes, there is absolutely going to be compromises with this frame - the seat height and wheelbase apparently. I wonder if I can fudge some more crank arm length if I go to longer (140mm) forks - should raise my BB by almost 9mm. Are there variations in tire height that could assist here?

Since I'm totally screwing around with the bike at this point, I wonder if there is a benefit to running a 29 front? It would raise the BB slightly and slacken the HA a bit more...

I love how all this stuff is a system.

The seat issues are definitely comprehendable - what about the short wheelbase? There's possibly some voodoo there...? Stability issues descending? Its about 30mm shorter than a similarly configured Transition Vagrant.


----------



## Mount Dora Cycles (May 29, 2009)

Glad you're really getting into the sport. Now realize you are trying to make a frame do what the frame isn't designed for. A longer travel fork would just make it handle worse on a trail. Unfortunately MTBing has a lot of people come from a BMX background and they tend to lean towards DJ bikes for the looks or feel of a small bike. These bikes aren't very efficient for XC or trail riding use. Swapping components is just putting a band-aid on the real problem. 

Moving the saddle to change reach is a big no-no. The saddle position should reflect pedaling efficiency only. Not fit. If you are moving the saddle back for more reach, you have the wrong size bike or the wrong style frame for the riding you want to do. A longer stem can be used for more reach but does change the handling of the bike.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Great! In what way does the longer stem change handling?


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

eimkeith said:


> Great! In what way does the longer stem change handling?


A longer stem slows the steering, as do wider bars. Wider bars will also pull you forward somewhat. So you can play with both stem length and bar width to get the right feel and fit.


----------



## mrice0118 (Nov 28, 2009)

I have a 05 P2 Single Speed that I use on the trails. It weighs in at 35 pounds on a bathroom scale. Very...very harsh on the climbs, pedals bang on small rocks (low BB). Overall, it sucks on the trail. I will be upgrading very soon!


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

mrice, is your bike still stock?

ok, so I disassembled the bike tonight - lots of basic componentry according to my biking friends, but the good news is:

on our vehicle scale (designed for 600-1000 lbs) the frame flickered between 4-5 lbs. I'll get more accurate weights soon.


----------



## bad news (Jul 12, 2008)

Dude it's a P2. Put that thing back together and never put it on a scale again. Spend as little money as you can on it too. Save your dough to build a proper trail bike with. Until then:

1. Wide bars - your choice. at least 710mm. I like the Race Face Atlas FR's, 785.
2. Short stem. 
3. Adjust all levers, controls, etc properly. You got a lot of handlebar to slide the brake levers in or around on now, so take advantage of that.
4. Adjust your seat to a point where it is just barely tall enough to make it possible to pedal seated. Don't worry about leg extension or efficiency or anything of the sort. All you want is the seat to be high enough so that it's possible to pedal seated at all. The only time you are going to be doing this is the parking lot. You may find it's more comfortable to tip the nose of the saddle up a bit so it's pointed more towards the stem. Your knees are your suspension and the saddle is a waste of time. You'll be standing to put down the power on the climbs and standing for bumps and jumps on the descents, so get it out of your way so you can move on the bike.
4. Ride standing up non stop. This is what the bike was meant to do. You are not supposed to sit on a P2.

Here's a video of a dude on bike similar to yours.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Thanks for the vid!

For the online record, the 2004 P2/3 Long frame weighs 2154g or 4.75 poundsNow that I've found my scale, I'll be weighing all the stuff that came off to find out where the extra 30 pounds comes from on this bike.

I know I'm entertaining myself at this point, but it may amuse/interest someone down the road, so I'll continue.


----------



## bad news (Jul 12, 2008)

Where the extra weight comes from? Everything. Literally everything.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

yeah, turns out there was no lead in the frame after all...


----------



## Kaba Klaus (Jul 20, 2005)

At least you had some fun time working on the bike... As I tried to explain in my original response: Every component of this bike has been designed to survive some abuse. Weight was not really considered.

You can bring the weight down and make this frame trail worthy. But it will cost you more than a new bike. Now,if that is not an issue:

- Lighter wheels and tires. (lose 2-3 lbs)
- Lighter cranks and pedals, nor chain guard. (lose 1-2 lbs) 
- Lighter stem and bar. (lose 0.5 lbs)
- Lighter seat. (lose 0.3 lbs)
- Lighter fork - air sprung. (lose 2-3 lbs)

Use as much carbon as possible for weight decrease and cost increase.  You can probably easily beat my estimates. Just a matter of price.


----------



## mrice0118 (Nov 28, 2009)

eimkeith said:


> mrice, is your bike still stock?


It's not stock...except for the fork. It has BMX cranks, Kona Stem and handlebars, and really long seat post. Also different wheels (can not remember and don't feel like looking  ).


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

alright, reassembled the P2 on Christmas' Eve, as a single speed no less (went to a 32t front in lieu of the stock 38t, 18t cog in the back)

Lost over 3 pounds in the process from the deletion of the box guides, the rear derailleur, the cassette rings, the shifter and cable and some length of chain.

Now the rear of the bike is feeling decent, the front is still heavy. I'd like to kill 2 birds with one stone in the fork department - first get more travel & height, second, lose some weight. This may or may not be possible, as the Marzocchi EXR Comp 100mm that came stock on this bike weighed only 2155g. Almost everything I'm seeing in the 140mm to 160mm range is similar weight, save the 150mm Dual Air Revelation, which saves over a pound. Any other fork suggestions here? I'm still learning the models and variations so I may have missed some.

I'm figuring on moving to something 140-160mm, 11/8" steerer, and 20mm QR if possible.

Aside from that, I could easily lose weight and improve quality on the seat post, pedals, head set, handlebar, stem (which needs to go from 40 to 50/60mm) and brakes (which I'd like to keep mechanical for simplicity, I think)! The BB is a porker also - Truvativ ISIS DH, but can stay for now, as the weight is low and central, and I don't see any quality issues here.

Any suggestions on slightly older, but great bang for the buck componentry in any of those areas is appreciated.

(not sure why these pictures are sideways?)


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

BTW, I'm happy to report that we then rode Sherman Branch on Xmas Eve, Beatty on Xmas morning, and noodled around in the snow this morning. Whee!


----------



## Stevirey (Jul 16, 2005)

*upgrade*

Here's your up-grade.
A new frame.
However old/lame /heavy/worn your wheels and components are they will transfer to another frame.Now you have a totally different bike some familiar components.
I've done this a few times.In the end you can save money.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

I'm thinking I'd rather do the opposite - new frame as last component, after I've defined what deficits my current frame has, and what I want out of a bike as a more experienced rider. 

In the mean time, the frame certainly doesn't seem to be a limitiation at the moment, weight or otherwise! The jury is still out on geometry also, based on what I'm understanding from comparisons with well regarded manufacturers.

Likewise, decent components will also transfer to a new frame at the appropriate time, no?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Buy yourself some good clipless pedals. They'll do a lot more for trail riding than losing a pound off the bike.


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

I've owned a few P bikes and actually the one you have can be a decent trail bike. Never will be a XC race bike but its not the heavy overbuilt pig of a frame the newer models are.
First thing is how tall are you? If you're over 5' 10"ish the frame will be really too small.

Now if you fit size wise the first upgrade is the fork (and wheels if going thru axle) but speaking from experience anything over 120mm on that frame gets the handling very floppy.

However all the stock parts are on the hefty side and you can definitely get a different bike for what parts would cost to upgrade sooooo the question I'd ask is: How much do you like the frame?


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

bad mechanic said:


> Buy yourself some good clipless pedals. They'll do a lot more for trail riding than losing a pound off the bike.


:madman: hmmmm, no.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

DSFA said:


> I've owned a few P bikes and actually the one you have can be a decent trail bike. Never will be a XC race bike but its not the heavy overbuilt pig of a frame the newer models are.
> First thing is how tall are you? If you're over 5' 10"ish the frame will be really too small.
> 
> Now if you fit size wise the first upgrade is the fork (and wheels if going thru axle) but speaking from experience anything over 120mm on that frame gets the handling very floppy.
> ...


Actually, I'm right at the 5'10"ish range, and you're probably right about the frame sizing based on the measurements and comparisons I've been doing with the 'well-regarded' AM hardtail frames.

As to the frame itself, I definitely like it enough to keep riding it while I'm determining what to replace it with! I don't want to jump from something I'm finding acceptable to a not-well-researched something that I may not just to get rid of possible dirtjump associations.(which don't bother me,obviously)

I am curious as to how going over 120mm makes it floppy? It seems to have a steeper HA than most 140-160mm AM Hardtails - I'd assume that it would be more responsive than those frames as a result? Obviously the effective top tube length goes up as the axle-to-crown increases, but that is a result of putting the saddle even further back over the wheel on a bike with industry-short chainstays. At some point that effect looks like the big issue with this frame to me.

I'll probably do some CAD comparisions to get a better visual on this stuff, to assist is making a decision on a fork. My intentions are to upgrade components in such a way that they can be moved to a new frame in the future.

Thanks for all the input so far! This is VERY educational. Keep it coming.


----------



## mnigro (Jul 31, 2007)

since you've ignored practically everyone's advice, I'll change gears on you...

there is an 18' ragley blue pig frame for sale in the classifieds... if it hasn't sold yet. if you are dead set on upping the travel on your fork and really want to throw money into parts (sounds like the case), buy that frame and look for a 140mm fork. Put your old cassette, rd and shifter on it. start saving up for new wheels and a new crankset. after those purchases you should have a bike you'll be happy with.

otherwise, as everyone else has said, save up and buy a new bike because you are trying to turn a campus **** into a virgin and it just aint gonna happen.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

On the contrary, I haven't ignored anyone's advice yet - just asking questions, getting some data, etc. 

Realize I've only been at this for 2 weeks, and have been taking the responses I get here, doing research (even on mtbr forums) to get a good understanding of the comments, and posing additional questions as I have them.

I certainly haven't meant to offend anyone, it's just that 'get a new bike' without additional supporting data isn't particularly helpful to me.

Very early in this thread, the weight and geometry of the P2 were stated to be fundamental issues making it less desirable (or unacceptable to some) for mountain biking use. I'm still exploring those ideas, getting empirical data, educating myself.

I've determined through disassembly and cataloging weights that the frame is not heavy for it's strength, after all.

Also, I've been reading about geometry and comparing frames as best I can, to understand what makes one thing more appropriate than another, for particular types of biking. This is clearly not so cut and dry as some frames seem to live between disciplines.

During all of this, I'm actually trying to go out and ride to determine what kind of riding I prefer or feel an affinity towards. Taking all these things into account, yes, I feel like it is premature to inve$t in a new bike, or even a frame, until I know what I'm after. Would you not agree?

So...? Again, I'm not trying to get under anyone's skin here, but appreciate the input.

I guess I should probably not post my spreadsheets on component weights and frame geometry comparisons? (I couldn't find any of that stuff on the web when u went looking for it, so I logged it myself, for reference purposes)


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

The great thing is it's your bike and you can do what you want with it.
You've certainly seemed to take the time to understand the issues. Your frame is a bit lighter than I would have thought, and you're right that with a longer fork, it will bring the head tube angle to around where some AM bikes are. If you're building it as a fun play bike for some aggressive trail riding (jumps and stuff) you should be fine. Just don't think it's going to be a good XC bike.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

I totally get that - this thing can never be an efficient pedaller.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

mnigro said:


> otherwise, as everyone else has said, save up and buy a new bike because you are trying to turn a campus **** into a virgin and it just aint gonna happen.


hahaha - campus ****, lol. I missed that first time around, but appreciate the sentiment.


----------



## mnigro (Jul 31, 2007)

eimkeith, it appears that I offended you. It wasn't my intention at all. What I meant by my initial sentence is that putting a long travel fork on that bike will not only bring the bars up, but it'll also screw up the ride. But, it seemed that you were intent on doing so which is why I commented.

Don't worry about bike weight at this stage in the game. Pedaling around a heavier-than-optimal bike will only make you stronger. The bike you have is a very specialized (no pun intended) bike and is meant to do one thing well, dirt jumping. It would be like trying to ride XC on a full-out DH bike. It can be done but sure as hell isn't optimal.

For about $100 you could get into a cheap aluminum frame from pricepoint. Having a XC bike will be much better for trail riding and you'll be able to tell what type of characteristics you like in a bike a lot easier because it'll be more versitile.

The worst thing you can do is to dump money into that bike because it will never be a good trail bike.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Nah, I'm not easily offended. I thought the analogy was funny, that's all.
In fact, I thought I might've offended the rest of you, since I'm slow and deliberate about these things - that tends to read like like I'm ignoring advice, on occasion.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

DSFA said:


> :madman: hmmmm, no.


For XC and trail? Absolutely clipless.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Is there a difference between XC and trail?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

eimkeith said:


> Is there a difference between XC and trail?


The bike manufacturers would have you think so, but there isn't much in reality.


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

eimkeith said:


> Is there a difference between XC and trail?


Not in my opinion. Trail, XC, and a good part of AM is what we used to just call "mountain biking". I can understand a separate designation for AM, but really never got the need for trying to create something in between XC and AM. 
I think if you take two riders riding the exact same trail, and one of them is wearing spandex and the other baggies, the guy in spandex is considered XC and the guy in baggies says he's riding Trail (or AM) because he doesn't want to be associated with "no spandex-wearing pansies"


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Based on that, my wife would prefer I ride Trail over XC.


----------



## pfox90 (Aug 8, 2010)

bad news said:


> Dude it's a P2. Put that thing back together and never put it on a scale again. Spend as little money as you can on it too. Save your dough to build a proper trail bike with.


This!!! Just save up for a new bike. I have the good graces of working for a sporting goods retail store and this is the only reason I built my bike up part by part, because it was cheaper. But for you it will be much more cost effective buying a new bike, and it will be a much better ride than riding a dj out on the trails. My friend does it and he can never climb up any hills.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Check out how little you can get a complete bike for:
http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mountain_bikes.htm


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

trailville said:


> Not in my opinion. *Trail, XC, and a good part of AM is what we used to just call "mountain biking".* *YES!!!* I can understand a separate designation for AM, but really never got the need for trying to create something in between XC and AM.
> I think if you take two riders riding the exact same trail, and one of them is wearing spandex and the other baggies, the guy in spandex is considered XC and the guy in baggies says he's riding Trail (or AM) because he doesn't want to be associated with "no spandex-wearing pansies"


:thumbsup:

As for the clipless vs flats... that's been beaten to death on any forum that has anything to do with bikes so I'll just leave it at my vote is whatever works for you personally. No absolutely this way or that.

OP, couple more things...first I think everyone is giving you the "get a new bike" line because they don't realize the year P.2 you have is not a strictly DJ bike like the newer versions are. I've had two P.1's and ridden them as SS mtn bikes and the worst part was the stock fork (MXR).

Which brings me to point two...the floppy handling with longer travel forks. My first one I had I put a Marz. Z. something or ether (think it was Z.1 drop off but it was five years and many bikes ago) on it mainly to get a 20mm TA. It was the model that had travel adjust, IIRC from 80-120mm, maybe 130mm. Anyway at full travel the handling was very floppy feeling. Like the front end wanted to drop/ flop over rather than turn in.

Looking back maybe it wasn't so bad as I am now riding a Transition TransAM (with flat pedals  ) and did a bunch of comparisons of frame geo's too. I even put a 120mm fork on my old Kona to see how this "new-school" HT geo was different than just putting a longer travel fork on. Again it made the handling floppy but after a ride or two it felt pretty good.I think it has more to do with the seat angle and BB height than the HT angle as after my first ride on the Kona I reset my saddle and that's when it started feeling good (like enough that if I didn't think having that much leverage on the HT would snap it off, I'd just kept it that way).
With my P.1 I didn't have it set up so much for efficient pedaling as old guy BMX bike so take that for what it's worth.


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

eimkeith said:


> Based on that, my wife would prefer I ride Trail over XC.


BTW, That is FUN-NY!:thumbsup:


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

DSFA said:


> Looking back maybe it wasn't so bad as I am now riding a Transition TransAM (with flat pedals  ) and did a bunch of comparisons of frame geo's too.


Actually the TransAm is one of the frame that I have identified as a possible successor to the P2, but I'm not intelligent enough about the change in CS length yet to make a well-informed decision. The Orange P7 and possibly the Evil Soveriegn look like viable alternatives as well, thus far, but those are obviously (well, maybe not so obvious) more or less DJ geometry with a longer seat tube from what I can tell.

Any frame upgrade I make needs to be SS configurable (preferably with track ends or some sort of horizontally adjustable drop outs), and Disc compatable, and I'd prefer 140mm or so fork optimization. It also needs to be properly sized, as mine is a tad too short, it seems.

I'm not convinced about super high BB (although I do have pedal strikes when riding) or super-slack HA yet, and to me the jury's still out on the Ragley geometry - I don't get the point of maintaining short CS length if you are going to move the seat tube angle towards vertical, but I'm obviously very inexperienced at this stuff right now - hence my hesitation to move in any direction other than component upgrades at the moment.

Did your frame geometry comparisons reveal anything I've missed? What ultimately made you go with the TransAm? Are you satisfied?


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

DSFA said:


> BTW, That is FUN-NY!:thumbsup:


Yeah my wife calls it Mandex, and requests that I wear it under something else.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

bad mechanic said:


> Check out how little you can get a complete bike for:
> http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mountain_bikes.htm


lots to look at there - thanks!


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

eimkeith said:


> Actually the TransAm is one of the frame that I have identified as a possible successor to the P2, but I'm not intelligent enough about the change in CS length yet to make a well-informed decision. The Orange P7 and possibly the Evil Soveriegn look like viable alternatives as well, thus far, but those are obviously (well, maybe not so obvious) more or less DJ geometry with a longer seat tube from what I can tell.
> 
> Any frame upgrade I make needs to be SS configurable (preferably with track ends or some sort of horizontally adjustable drop outs), and Disc compatable, and I'd prefer 140mm or so fork optimization. It also needs to be properly sized, as mine is a tad too short, it seems.
> 
> ...


When it finally came down to it I picked the TA because the seat tube length is longer (and more inline with my past frame sizing, 18") than what I was being told I should fit on other frames, i.e. on Ragley, On-One, Sanderson, etc. basically all the UK oriented HT frames since it seems that is where this long travel HT stuff came from, I was told by the frame companies I should be on a 16" frame. If I had a chance to ride some of these before hand I might have went for one because I got to ride a On-One 16" and it felt pretty good but was set up with a rigid fork and the front was really low. With a LT fork raising the front end it probably would be nice.
Another factor was I found my TA frame used so it was fairly cheap but at the time I was saving to get a new one so had my mind pretty much made up. 
With the TA the seat tube is about 18" so my pedal seat height is doable but it is at the edge of the 350mm seatpost that came with the frame because the TT drops so much. You want to have seatpost insertion past the toptube and mine is right at what I consider minimum.

I running my TA with a Fox 831 DJ fork which is only a 120mm and it's made for a 140 so mine rides a little lower in front with quicker handling. I just picked up a RS Revelation cheap that's a 130mm travel that I'm going to put on to see what difference it makes. I'm guessing not a lot but the RS was too good of deal to pass by.
I'd say if you're going to go for one of these go at least with 140mm, if not 160mm fork.
As for pedal strikes...well, I live in the Rockies and while I hit some it doesn't seem worse than normal and is more a matter of timing than BB height. But for me, I don't really care for super high BB's much so ymmv.

As for frame geo comparing, I forget what CS length your P.2 is but am thinking its similar to the TA. The newer P frames (had a P.2 and P.3 of the new style, so yep, I've had four P bikes) are shorter, heavier and not as good for all around riding. What seems to be the big difference is the seat angle. When you put a LT fork on your bike or like on my Kona it pushes the SA back so you end up needing to move the seat forward to get into a good pedaling position. The frames designed for the longer forks take this into account.

Fwiw, while I'm happy with the TA my next frame I do believe is going to be a Cotic Soul, they're a bit more spendy though. I am trying to find my next "keeper" frame like my Kona has been and the Cotic are 853 Reynolds like my Kona and to me there is enough of a difference in the ride that 853 is better.

Mandex, hmmm, you seem to be blessed with a wife with a good sense of humor, you better keep her around and listen to her advice! :thumbsup:


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

Here's quick pic after my son and I got home yesterday


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

If your TA is a medium, the CSs are approx 20mm longer than the '04 P2, which is probably a considerable difference.

I've got a comparison spreadsheet that I'm in the process of adding the Cotic Simple to (same geometry as Soul according to Cotic) - I'll post/link to it. I'm also adding Scrublover's Peytwo frame geometry to the sheet, as he seemed to really like that frame for AM use, and it is remarkably similar to the P2, assuming similar/same axle-to-crown dimensions.

I suppose by the time you are ready for your Cotic Soul, I'll be ready for your used TA frame  

Until then, I'm window shopping forks (and wheels)


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

*Comparison Data and Compnent Weights*

For those interested.


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

eimkeith said:


> I suppose by the time you are ready for your Cotic Soul, I'll be ready for your used TA frame


So when ya going to be done window shopping? :lol: Do kinda like that idea though.

Interesting charts you made up, that would take me forever so I just spent lots of time looking at geometry charts on websites.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Well rode Uwharrie today for the first time. Unfortunately, we went counter-clockwise on the Supertree Loop first, and got stuck (literally - the tires would not roll, neither to climb nor descend) in the mud on the uphill logging road. Had to carry it back down and spent the day hiking.

Still worth it though - learned a couple of things, like mud clearance.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

DSFA said:


> So when ya going to be done window shopping? :lol: Do kinda like that idea though.


Well, keep me in mind when you upgrade, then! :thumbsup:


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Well, rode Anne Springs Greenway today - I'm starting to see both the benefits and detriments of a short wheelbase. Still getting used to pedaling SS, and stalling on short (but extreme) climbs. Very reassuring dropping in though, as I'm able to get way back behind the bike.

I might need to try clipless to get some more yardage on the climbing...


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

eimkeith said:


> I might need to try clipless to get some more yardage on the climbing...


I ride 99% single speed, and it's hard to over estimate how much clipless pedals help. It really is just free power.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

so you may have seen my post in this forum about needing a threaded collar for my non-drive side crank arm - which took some threads out of the crank arm when it came out.

This happened, of course, when I was switching pedals to some old Shimano DXs (that I got from a friend in college years ago) like these - so I could screw around riding clipless for a while.

Now I'm down until I take the crank arm to a local LBS per SRAM's instructions for a replacement.

In the meantime, since I've got the time, I did some CAD work on the frame comparisons I've been collecting data on. I figured this would help me visualize the differences between the stack and reach on differnet frames, as well as the relationship of the seat to the bottom bracket and rear wheel.

You guys might like this.

So far I've drawn to scale the 2004 P2 Long that I ride, as well as my business partners' 2008 Transition Vagrant, and the 2010 Evil Sovereign. The reasoning here is that my buddies Vagrant has been used very well as an AM hardtail with abuse for long enough to justify its abilities, and the Sovereign is well-regarded on these forums as a true do-it-all hardtail that can climb, XC, jump and descend (plus, I like it!)

The Vagrant was drawn with a 518mm Axle to Crown, per Transition's specs & geometry, likewise the Sovereign was drawn with the 510.9mm Axle to Crown that Evil specs. For apples to apples comparison, I rotated the P2 frame to also reflect a 518mm Axle to Crown dimension.

Here are the results, as an overlay, exported to bitmap: (you are seeing the the P2 on top of the Vagrant, on top of the Sovereign, all as transparencies to visually compare the geometry, wheelbase, BB heights, etc.)


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

I used the rear axle as the reference point for all the frames. I haven't had time to list all of the dimension data on the drawing, will amend as I get time.

Interestingly enough, these geometries seem to be in the same neighborhood to me. The Vagrant and Sovereign are both medium, by the way.

Still, the P2 has a woefully short seat post. But with a proper fork, it at least looks rideable in the same vane as the comparison bikes.

I do have a question though - the Evil spec uses 510.9mm A to C to represent a 140mm fork. Does it stand to reason that Transition's 518mm A to C dimension represents a 150mm fork?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

I think you might get a better perspective using the bottom bracket center as your reference point.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

I'll try that as well.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

wow, two hours later it occurs to me that the overlay could be REALLY confusing to understand without showing the individual drawings as well.

I'll add those as well tomorrow.

In the meantime, is there a table of axle-to-crown measurements for common/popular forks?


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

Alright eimkeith, time to lay off the amphetamines and just start enjoying the ride. I just need to stop you before you try to post your powerpoint presentation.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

you know about the powerpoint??


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

bad mechanic said:


> I think you might get a better perspective using the bottom bracket center as your reference point.


This a better way to compare frames but with their intended fork lengths. If you're going to compare as Keith has done what the effects of different lengths of forks or putting a longer travel one on then the rear axle makes the most sense to be the fixed comparison point. This is because that is where the effects of the longer fork are going to pivot around. It also shows you what changes in BB height going with a longer fork has on the geometry too.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

DSFA said:


> This a better way to compare frames but with their intended fork lengths.


This is what it appears Keith is trying to, which is why I suggested it. He was only talking a2c in regards to what comes stock on the frame.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Actually, I'm _intending_ to compare the P2 frame _with a long-travel fork_ to other frames that are considered good/great for hartail AM use.

To that end, I used the A2C dimension from the Vagrant - I could have use that dimension from the Sovereign, I just arbitrarily chose.

Conversely, I could have applied the stock P2 A2C to both the Vagrant and Sovereign frames, but I thought it might be more informative using the the fork length I'd prefer to run.

It is looking to me (and I might be overstepping here) that the Vagrant, Sovereign, and likely the Chameleon and Stylus (and possibly other well-regarded and beloved AM Hardatail frames) are more or less simply repurposed DJ geometry. - With longer seat tubes, of course.

:thumbsup:

Regardless of the data discoveries, this is entertaining, is it not?

When I'm done with this, I'll get into the pros/cons of Hammerschmidt use with a fixed rear hub, lol. ( - that is for a later time.  )

Whee!


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

Ok, guys, stop encouraging him. 

I will add that one of the problems in doing this level of detail comparison of frames based on manufacturers specs, is that you can't always trust manufacturers specs (they don't all measure the same way). Especially any measurement that is affected by fork length. You really don't know exactly what fork length they used when they documented the specs. And as we keep moving to longer travel forks they really should be incorporating sag into the equation (I have no idea if any do). The head tube angle of a long travel hardtail will probably be several degrees steeper once you take sag into account.


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

Why stop? It's like 2 degrees outside so nothing better to do than this (or maybe sleep since I have to work tonight....or pay bills but that's depressing...or clean house.....umm, sleep sounds like the best choice! )

So a two speed fixie mtn bike?????? NICE!!!


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

doesn't A2C eliminate that variable?


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

DSFA said:


> So a two speed fixie mtn bike?????? NICE!!!


Yeah, with the weight centralized and down low. Basically SS with a "I suck at climbing" gear...


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

eimkeith said:


> doesn't A2C eliminate that variable?


when comparing one frame to another, only if you know the specific A2C used when they put together the geometry specs. You can't assume based on the fork currently sold with the bike because the same frame may be sold over several years with different forks (even different travel), and none of these may be exactly what they used when they engineered the geo.

When actually trying to figure the head tube angle you will have while riding, you need to take sag into account. Especially if you are trying to figure out the change moving to a longer travel fork. For example, if you are running a 100mm fork with an A2C of 470mm and want to know the change going to a 160mm fork with an A2C of 530, your front end height is not actually going to increase by 60mm. You may have been running 20-25mm sag on the 100mm fork, and 40-50mm sag on the 160. So that 60mm increase in A2C without sag may only translate into about 35-40mm once you incorporate sag.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

ok, seperate images, as promised.
Vagrant Medium, 518mm a2c
P2 Long, 518mm a2c 
Sovereign Medium, 510.9mm a2c


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

trailville said:


> when comparing one frame to another, only if you know the specific A2C used when they put together the geometry specs.


Agreed - I used the 518mm a2c that Transition used as a spec for their frame geo, and the 510.9mm a2c that Evil used to spec theirs.

For the P2, it was drawn with an assumed 488 a2c for a 100mm fork, then rotated to a 518mm a2c for the comparison. This is where there could be an issue - I don't think there was an a2c dictated/represented by Specialized on their archived specs for the P2.
However, I do have the actual bike for measuring purposes, so.... there has to be some level of accuracy there...


----------



## SHowley2003 (Feb 21, 2008)

Am I the only one who has read this and wondered why hasn't he simply gone to his LBS and test rode a few true trail bikes?

My advice is to stop figuiring out how every micro angle will potentially cover up a flow in the frame and go take some bikes out to the trails and feel the difference in ride quality. I know many Specialized dealers will have stumpjumpers available for demo. An hour on one of those will be much more informative than counting grams, and measuring angles. Plus it would be may more enjoyable!

Just my two cents...


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

I'm still enjoying my own bike at the moment - well, at least until I fubar'ed the crank arm the other night...

And honestly, most of this is motivated by wanting to understand what I am buying when I select a new frame. That is, if there is enough difference there to justify buying one... (plus, I like to screw around with this stuff!)

I bought a Trek 6500 in college (1997, I think) - that kind of bike is NOT what I'm looking for, although it was a great commuter for a while and my wife likes it today as her trail bike.
I appreciate how light it is, though! A couple of thing I don't like about it (and this is exacerbated by actually using it on the trails now vs. commuting back then) is the long stem/seating posture and the lack of travel in the forks. Totally different experience riding my business partner's Vagrant w/145mm Manitou - at least for me.

Is that reasonable?


----------



## trailville (Jul 24, 2006)

BostonBoy said:


> Am I the only one who has read this and wondered why hasn't he simply gone to his LBS and test rode a few true trail bikes?


He seems to be interested in long-travel hardtails. Depending on where you live, your chances of finding long travel hardtails in stock can be pretty slim. And finding one you can actually demo on a trail?


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

It has occurred to me that maybe this thread should be in the frame forum, but at least half of my questions are completely newb... 

Is there really a map of the entire forest, and is there a link to it online?


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

OK, I am still waiting on crank arm warranty replacement, all the trails are closed, and I'm really not trying to annoy anyone, but...

I spent this afternoon dodging house projects and researching both the KOPS method (suggested in another thread) and measuring myself according to the Competitive Cyclist  Fit Calculator.

I also mocked up my little P2 to have 518mm A2C measurement, so I could do real-life double-checking of my CAD work, as well as investigate the possibility of proper seat positioning per the KOPS method.

Here are my specific results:

*Measurements (in centimeters)
-------------------------------------------
Inseam: 83
Trunk: 66.6
Forearm: 34
Arm: 64
Thigh: 59.9
Lower Leg: 54.5
Sternal Notch: 63
Total Body Height: 170
*

*Recommended All Mountain Fit
-------------------------------------------
Standover Height Range: 31.1 - 31.7 inches * (I'm at a theoretical 30 - 30.5 inches)
*Virtual Top Tube: 23.0 - 23.4 inches * (I'm at a theoretical 23.4 - 23.6 inches)
*Stem Length: 7.3 - 9.7 cm* (currently 4 cm)
*BB-Saddle Position: 68.5 - 74.5 cm* (KOPS measured today at 73.5 cm)
*Saddle-Handlebar: 52.2 - 54.0 cm * (theoretical 51 cm with 6 cm stem, measured using my fairly long nosed saddle)

EXCELLENT resource, btw - very helpful and easy to use.

I multiplied my cycling inseam by .883 to arrive with the proper saddle top-to-BB center measurement. Once the seat was adjusted to this height and the A2C dimension mocked up to 518mm (per the fork length desired, should be pretty much a 160mm sagged, I believe) I found that I had to slide my seat FORWARD quite a bit to get the bottom of my kneecap plumb over the forward pedal spindle (KOPS method). This was surprising to me, as I run my seat quite a bit lower, generally.

At this seat height, I only have ~25mm plunge with my 350mm seat post. I don't think even a 400mm post will have enough plunge to avoid damaging it or the frame, either. (BTW, my 350 is cleanly bent from use now, even at the lower height setting) To my knowledge 400mm is as long as is currently available, correct?

As you guys told me repeatedly in this very thread, *I need more seat tube*.

On the other hand, the actual, real-life ETT is 595-600mm, easily within the range of currently manufactured AM hardtail frames recommended for my body size/type. In fact, the P2 with an appropriate long travel fork fits easily within Competitive Cyclist's Bit Fit guidelines for AM with the exception of stem length - they recommend a minimum of 73mm, and I'm opposed to going over 60mm at the moment.

Since I ride SS right now, I believe a proper set of wide bars will soak up that 13mm difference (as mentioned previously on this thread, IIRC) as well as providing a leverage benefit.

I still have the fundamental seat tube length problem.

SO

- I've been researching aluminum bonding.

I BELIEVE i should be able to machine a seat tube extension that is a tight fit on the collar-area and bond it in place. This extension (represented in green on my P2 with 518mm A2C drawing above on this page) would need to have a brace already TIG welded to it, as the heat from welding after bonding might weaken any adhesive (and remove the heat treating from the intersection of seat stays, top tube and seat tube.) I THINK that I could get a way with TIG welding the top tube end of such a brace and keep the heat localized in such a way that it does not adversely affect the frame.

Is this the nuttiest Beginner's Corner thread to date?

Any good threads on aluminum bonding/adhesives, or other creative ideas about solving (or getting around) the seat tube length problem?


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

Keith, I actually think it's pretty cool you're this into figuring geometry out. Maybe because you're geeking out over it more than I do   

So you're having to slam your seat way forward because with the longer fork your seat tube is tipping back as the front end goes up. Which also effectively shortens the effective top tube length because the seat tube angle is further back than the seat.

Used to be some places to get a 450mm seatpost, think IRD even had some 475's. It would be cheaper and easier to get a seatpost modded with extra length than add to the frame. And any welding on the frame will mess the heat treatment up and give you soft (annealed) spots.

Still interested in the TA? I've been window shopping myself again which is a badddd thing for my wallet and health (when wifey finds out).


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Thanks! I'm really just enjoying the education with this.



DSFA said:


> So you're having to slam your seat way forward because with the longer fork your seat tube is tipping back as the front end goes up. Which also effectively shortens the effective top tube length because the seat tube angle is further back than the seat.


Well, yes and no. I'd been riding with my seat slammed all the way back on its rails previously (that is with the stock 100mm fork/lower a2c height), and now that I'v compensated for the longer fork as you mentioned, I am having to move the seat forward to roughly mid-rail, which I gather is about right, as it gives me tuning room.



DSFA said:


> to be some places to get a 450mm seatpost, think IRD even had some 475's. It would be cheaper and easier to get a seatpost modded with extra length than add to the frame. And any welding on the frame will mess the heat treatment up and give you soft (annealed) spots.


I'd love some pointers on which brands those are/where to look for them! That would go a LONG way towards solving a part of this problem.

As to the frame mod, I'm thinking that an extension could be made out of 5000 or 7000 series aluminum (no need to heat treat) and something like Loctite 638 could be used to bond it to the existing clamping area of the original seat tube. The only welding during installation would be at the brace intersection with the top tube, and that would be 5 or so inches from the nearest weld/tube intersection on the frame. It would remove some of the the strength of the heat treated top tube (which I assume is 6061 T6) at the weld area, but I think the affected zone would be very minor



DSFA said:


> Still interested in the TA? I've been window shopping myself again which is a badddd thing for my wallet and health (when wifey finds out).


You know what, I think I am. I need to run CAD on that frame so I understand it a little better, and I'm fairly certain that I want to continue to develop my Special Ed frame, since it is ticking all the right boxes, but I'm also interested in seeing what a forum-approved frame is like. It might also cut my down time while I futz with the P2...

You might want to PM me with your possible timeframe and asking price, etc. 
BTW, does that frame have ISCG tabs? I'm interested in Hammerschmidt experiments in the future.


----------



## DSFA (Oct 22, 2007)

IRD Seatposts, 425mm, can't remember what size your P.2 is, thinking 30.9mm?
http://www.interlocracing.com/seatposts.html

I'll PM ya in a bit.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Wow, has it been a year already?

I rediscovered this thread during my Holiday break and thought I'd update it. 

In the current configuration I'm at 28.6 pounds. - This is with the following changes: 
- upgraded the heavy 100mm DJ fork with a 150mm Revelation Team Air w/20mm thru-axle (405g lighter), 
- the stock front wheel replaced with a Mavic Crossline (~400g lighter),
- the Truvativ DH Crankset/BB making a lateral change to an external BB version of the same (probably gained weight here), 
- Specialized platform pedals replaced with old Shimano DX DH pedals - so I can try clipless (both heavy and I gained 50g here to 644g),
- the 40mm Hussefelt stem replaced with a 60mm version (which is 3g lighter),
- the stock Truvativ handlebar replaced with a wider, taller Hussefelt Comp (107g lighter)

I still have to install a front brake/rotor (might go BB7 F/R for some more weight savings), and swap the stock headset for Cane Creek S-8 and cut the steerer.

Here is how the Special Ed is entering 2012.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

I went back to Sherman Branch (it's been a year since I've ridden this thing) and ran out of daylight after 9 miles. Good enough for me for the moment!

So far I've removed 5 pounds from the bike, mimicked the geometry of somewhat well-regarded long travel hardtails, fairly well matched the fit of the bike to my body's "ideal fit", and learned a LOT.

I'm still riding it as a single speed, but went to 32/16 from 32/18 for 2:1 drive ratio. (Started with 38/18 when I didn't know any better.) I think 32/16 is where I'll stay for a while. With that, I'm gathering bits to build a dedicated SS rear wheel with a 16t freewheel - should be significantly lighter, stronger, and symmetrical - and relatively inexpensive.

I still have to learn about and transition to clipless, to avoid losing pedaling power. 
I'm now also trying to learn about modern tires - in terms of sizing, weight, and performance, as I'm still riding on the '04 2.2 Rollers that came front and rear on this bike. I've read that I can take advantage of the cushion of a larger tire in the back, and I'm hoping to get some more steering out of a larger front as well. With kevlar and whatnot, there could be some weight savings here as well?

I'll still try to solve the unsupported seat post issue - the acheilles heel of this type of frame. 

It has occured to me to machine a 27.2 to 30.9 adaptor that would act as a frame extension, but for the meantime, I'm pretty sure I'll just replace the now-bent 300mm original with a 410mm Thomson post (more post in the frame). The Thomson I was shown at my LBS was CNC'd as an oval on the interior - apparently to combat the bending forces that can occur from landing seated? I'm not sure if this is pretty standard, or specific to the post I was shown, but it seems like an elegant weight/strength solution. (I'm out of the saddle except when pedalling on flat land, so it may even be a non-issue at this point.) 

I considered a dropper-style post - it seems to solve the frame issue I have - but I don't think the weight/cost is worth it for the short (5-15 miles) riding I do at this time.

In any event, to say I'm enjoying myself is an understatement. :thumbsup:

If you guys still want to indulge me, please pitch tire information/suggestions my way!


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Alright, working on the SS rear wheel at the moment (and trail-building, actually, in fact)

- starting with the DMR Revolver SS rear hub, brecause it is cheap, symmetrical, and light at 288g.

and then it arrives, and is not light:


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

well, 50g not as light as advertised, anyway. (DMR acknowledged the weight increase after a re-design of this hub and is amending the web advertising regarding weight, btw)

after reading about rims, I'll likely go Mavic EN521 Disc at 540g as opposed to Transition Revolution 28 at 617g - particularly since I'm using the Mavic Crossline up front, and although it is not welded, it has been a good lightweight wheel so far, and allows a range of 2.1 to 2.5 on the tires - exactly what I think I'm after at this point, for this bike.

Using the DT Swiss spoke calculator (which calculates weights for you - very convenient), using 2.0mm spokes I should end up with an ~1050g wheel, before the freewheel. Not stellar, but should be strong for the weight?

Add in the freewheel (White Industires ENO 16t at 177g) and I'm in the 1200-1250g neighborhood before tires. I don't think this is incredibly light? Input here?


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Well, almost made a serious error this morning, and might have negated the value of the SS-specific hub somewhat, as I did not realize the P frame has offset rear triangles! :


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

A quick check of the Specialized website (bless you Specialized for keeping the 2004 specs on your site!) indicates a 6mm offset, which basically matches my own 5.3mm result (requiring an embarrasing cobbling-together of dischordant objects to mimic actual 
instruments of measurement)

So, now I've moved to the spocalc.xls spreadsheet (forget the author at the moment) readily available on the net, which allows you to input a value for OSB Offset Spoke Bed. I assume this works for frame offset as well? 

Someone please chime in here - preferably before I order spokes!

(Thanks in advance)


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

no one? I'll try wheel/tire forum then...


----------



## fast540 (May 29, 2011)

im glad youre having fun but is this still your only bike


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Increase or decrease the WL and WR numbers to account for the offset.

Why are you looking at rims that heavy? If you want something a little stronger than XC, look at their 19 series.

For tires look at the Continental Race King Supersonic 2.2 and the Continental X King Supersonic in 2.4. They both use a high volume casing with low profile knobs (their casings are actually the same size), with the X King using higher profiles side knobs. They both grip incredibly well, are fast, and light.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

bad mechanic said:


> Increase or decrease the WL and WR numbers to account for the offset.


WL/WR?



bad mechanic said:


> Why are you looking at rims that heavy? If you want something a little stronger than XC, look at their 19 series.


Like the EX319 for example? How do I determine what will hold up to my developing riding skills (still hucking some stuff) on an aluminum hardtail without bending too easily? Also, I want to be able to run 2.1-2.4 range for the cushion, lol.. If the EX319 is fairly durable, it is certainly attractive weight-wise to the EN521 (which isn't altogether piggy, right?)



bad mechanic said:


> For tires look at the Continental Race King Supersonic 2.2 and the Continental X King Supersonic in 2.4. They both use a high volume casing with low profile knobs (their casings are actually the same size), with the X King using higher profiles side knobs. They both grip incredibly well, are fast, and light.


I was actually looking at some great pricing on Conti Mountain King 2.4 - should I hold out and shop for the X King Supersonic?

Thanks for the help on this!


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

eimkeith said:


> WL/WR?


Width-Left and Width-Right. It's the distance from the center of the hub (as measured from between the locknuts) to the center of the flange. If you look in Spocalc, you'll see those values listed in the hub specifications. With a non-offset frame, the rim will run directly above the center of the hub, so with an offset frame, you simply "move" the hub's center to account for it.



eimkeith said:


> Like the EX319 for example? How do I determine what will hold up to my developing riding skills (still hucking some stuff) on an aluminum hardtail without bending too easily? Also, I want to be able to run 2.1-2.4 range for the cushion, lol.. If the EX319 is fairly durable, it is certainly attractive weight-wise to the EN521 (which isn't altogether piggy, right?)


Do you mean the XM319? The best ways to find out is asking other riders, reading reviews, and looking at the manufacturer's description. The XM319 is a strong rim, and I use them myself, and they should hold up under you for a while. However, the durability of a wheel is extremely dependent upon how it's built. You can use the strongest parts, but if it's built poorly, it'll still fall apart quickly.



eimkeith said:


> I was actually looking at some great pricing on Conti Mountain King 2.4 - should I hold out and shop for the X King Supersonic?


I've used the Mountain King, and I'm not a fan. It's just a tire built with old technology. I think you should definitely pass on it and find a X King. You don't necessarily need the SS one as it gives up a little durability for weight, but you absolutely want either that, or the Protection, or the Race Sport since they're the ones with Black Chili compound. Additionally, make sure you get the 2.4.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

bad mechanic said:


> Width-Left and Width-Right. It's the distance from the center of the hub (as measured from between the locknuts) to the center of the flange. If you look in Spocalc, you'll see those values listed in the hub specifications. With a non-offset frame, the rim will run directly above the center of the hub, so with an offset frame, you simply "move" the hub's center to account for it.


OK, it seems that OSB and WR/WL adjustments are interchangeable on the spokecalc spreadsheet in my situation (since my flanges are the same diameter, I assume.) 
I end up with 258.6 and 260.4 spoke lengthrecommendations - I assume I'd round both of these up to the next whole millimeter?



bad mechanic said:


> Do you mean the XM319? The best ways to find out is asking other riders, reading reviews, and looking at the manufacturer's description. The XM319 is a strong rim, and I use them myself, and they should hold up under you for a while. However, the durability of a wheel is extremely dependent upon how it's built. You can use the strongest parts, but if it's built poorly, it'll still fall apart quickly.


Yes, my error there - so the XM319 will support a 2.4 tire?



bad mechanic said:


> I've used the Mountain King, and I'm not a fan. It's just a tire built with old technology. I think you should definitely pass on it and find a X King. You don't necessarily need the SS one as it gives up a little durability for weight, but you absolutely want either that, or the Protection, or the Race Sport since they're the ones with Black Chili compound. Additionally, make sure you get the 2.4.


Thanks for this info! I was reading similar assessments of the Mountain King online - I'll put the 2.4 X King on my internet deal shopping list :thumbsup:


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

eimkeith said:


> I end up with 258.6 and 260.4 spoke lengthrecommendations - I assume I'd round both of these up to the next whole millimeter?


Yes, I always like to round up.



eimkeith said:


> Yes, my error there - so the XM319 will support a 2.4 tire?


Yup, no problem.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Im back! Updates coming...


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

OK, so after a lot of cad file work comparing frame geometries and riding/developing the P2, I'm going to try a new frame.

The 2 issues with the P2 are: seat tube is too short (as indicated by particularly insightful MTBR members) and I'd like to try a frame with a little more reach. 
- The seat tube issue is resolvable with either A) a 400-410mm post or B) going to a 27mm post and creating an adaptor that essentially creates more seat tube in the frame.
- The reach issue is remedied with a longer stem, wider bars, or a combination of the two while seated. When I'm standing (most of the time, I'm riding SS) affect of the frame's reach on handling becomes exacerbated (at least, I _think_ so.)

The P2 is a GREAT frame for what it is - a Transition Vagrant Medium with less weight and a shorter seat tube. I may very well end up building it back up, particularly since it is great on the 1 mile singletrack loop at our shop.

For now though I've made a deal with KT42 on MTBR (who incidentally lives 12 miles from me - small world) for a V1 Evil Sovereign. I'm curious as to how much additional weight I'll be adding (the P2 is 4.75 pounds and ridiculously strong, it would seem), how I'll go about adding ISCG tabs, and how I'll feel about a 12mm higher BB, but the reach is increased and the seat tube is a non-issue.

Needless to say, I've done prelim drawings of the V1, but want to measure it in person when it arrives before posting the frame comparisons here. Give me a couple of weeks on that. And of course, I'll be weighing it, since _that_ data is _also_ unobtainable on the internet...

:thumbsup:


----------



## CSC (May 23, 2011)

Upgrade to a purpose-specific frame. But for the love of all things "bomb-proof", hold on to that bike!
I just got an XC bike (Rockhopper), and while I really enjoy it, I miss not having to think about drops on pavement/ off walls


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Got the Evil Sovereign V1 Regular frame this afternoon, stripped down the headset that came with it and got a good weight measurement on it. It is 2810g, about 656g heavier than my P2 Long frame (1.45lbs)

I then got to work on the CAD file, so I can 'see' how it compares to the P2, geometry and sizing-wise. My hope (I could not find good data on this frame on the internet) is that it has an increased reach over the P2 - which is a great fit for me seated, but gets a little tight (but bearable) standing and pedaling. I do a lot of standing and pedaling.

I'll post when I have results. :thumbsup:

(more pictures in the Sov. Stoke thread in AM)


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

*Crap*

its _shorter_.

Shorter cockpit, shorter reach, shorter wheelbase, shorter in general. - Not what I expected.

More later, need to think about this.

Here are the 2 in comparison: (RED is the Sov, everything else is the P2)


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

OK, doing some more research - looks like I can use Works Components Angled headset to get the frame more in line with what I'm riding:

(also finessing the fork A2C ~5mm)


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

In the drawing above, the Sov is in BLUE, the P2 Long in BLACK.

- worst case scenario, I ride this, decide it is too short, and move the headset to a Sov V1 Long frame when one becomes available?

I'll post pictures when the headset comes in and I start to build.

In the meantime, back to work on the trail on our company property - 1.1miles tucked in around the building!


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

OK, built it up yesterday:

I'll post again here when I have enough real world data to compare the two frames.


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Quick update; moved on to a Sovereign V1 Long since then, and have recently built up the P2 with a Pike for my wife (geo is so similar, less weight; likely more strength)
We rode at the USNWC today:
(P2 to left, Sov to right)










keith.

(sent from my rotary dial phone.)


----------



## Sharingan 19 (Jun 13, 2008)

One of the most interesting threads I've found on here, Bravo!

I must admit I'm somewhat baised, having recently built up a similar vintage P1 except converting it from SS to 1x10 (commuter duty). I was also surprised how light the frame was when I stripped it and dropped it off for powder coating. 

You ever end up finding the ideal "jack of all trades" frame?


----------



## eimkeith (Oct 16, 2010)

Yeah, I think so, the Evil Sov. Long

I'm fooling around with a SS GT Distortion at the moment - seeing if I can have as much fun on a full suspension frame...





Sharingan 19 said:


> One of the most interesting threads I've found on here, Bravo!
> 
> I must admit I'm somewhat baised, having recently built up a similar vintage P1 except converting it from SS to 1x10 (commuter duty). I was also surprised how light the frame was when I stripped it and dropped it off for powder coating.
> 
> You ever end up finding the ideal "jack of all trades" frame?


----------



## Sharingan 19 (Jun 13, 2008)

eimkeith said:


> Yeah, I think so, the Evil Sov. Long
> 
> I'm fooling around with a SS GT Distortion at the moment - seeing if I can have as much fun on a full suspension frame...


At times I wished we had more elevation in Fl, so I could justify cool things like FS......but then I look at the price of FS bikes and I'm pretty content with hardtails and flat trails, lol


----------

