# Custom Frame - How will it ride?



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Hi there,

I'm trying to design a custom frame to get made up as an all purpose fun hardtail. If not found that many ;options locally so I'm looking into getting the frame built.

Requirements:

Comfortable for 30-50km rides around town at moderate pace (sealed & gravel surfaces)
Must be playful and handle a few light jumps, bunny hops etc
Can venture out onto some singletrack occasionally (blue trails no black)

From looking around I've sort of thinking of something between the Ibis DV9 and the Chameleon.

I'm 168cm, 84kg with a 78cm inseam.

This is what I've come up with so far, any thoughts about how this thing might actually end up riding?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Please put more work into your dimentioning.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Some thoughts and opinions--

What travel fork? Looks like it might be an exciting ride if you bottom it out. Check what the bike looks like at 100% sag; front-center and head angle.

I don't see any benefit to such a long head tube. It's poor use of prime real estate. Either shorten it, run a longer fork... If that's your actual saddle height you're really limiting your ability to fit yourself. IMO if your head tube isn't ~120mm you should have thought about why that's the case.

Looks like you're trying to keep the front-center real short? That's fine on urban stuff, but you don't give much (anything, imo) by pushing the front end out a bit more. I don't see any value in a short FC on a bike that will be jumped and ridden off road.

That BB is HIGH, especially for your use-case. Consider moving to the ~315mm range, which is still fairly conservative. I use bikeCAD's lean angle measure for BB height; i like ~36* for mtbs.

IMO when you're designing for yourself, start with front-center and rider compartment, then move on to describe the seat position and handlebar drop, then steering behavior (head angle, offset, reach). Chainstays last. You might design a production frame. Put up drawings that have accurate saddle height, rider compartment, front-center, stem length, fork length, and wheelbase. It makes it easier to evaluate.

I'd be surprised if a pro builder would be willing to sign his name to this, as pictured. Half the value in having a custom frame is the builder's intimate knowledge of frame design. Going through this process is still valuable for good communication with the builder, though.

I'm not an expert. Hope this is helpful 



pvd said:


> Please put more work into your dimentioning.


You posted that while i was replying... knew it was coming. hahaha


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Thanks for the advice. I spent a little more time on this ... I'm not expert but working through the app little at a time. I don't seem to be able to select wheelbase in the view(greyed out).

I'm modelling this around a 120mm fork with an A2C of ~530mm (Im thinking a 120mm revelation). I'm also using 165mm cranks. Assuming 29x2.2 tyres in this also.

0% sag








20%sag








100%sag


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Yeah I'd definitely let the builder add their own expertise and knowledge to the design. I'd just like to get to a reasonable ballpark as a starting point rather than starting the discussion from a blank piece of paper.


----------



## Forest Rider (Oct 29, 2018)

I think the chainstay is too long and seat tube is too steep.

LOL -totally kidding. And didn't mean to derail the thread which is probably going to happen now. Sorry.
Just poking fun at other threads using this as a portal.



pvd said:


> Please put more work into your dimentioning.


....or is it dimensioning?


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Forest Rider said:


> I think the chainstay is too long and seat tube is too steep.
> 
> LOL -totally kidding. And didn't mean to derail the thread which is probably going to happen now. Sorry.
> Just poking fun at other threads using this as a portal.
> ...


lol fair point though re numbers ... I'm trying to put some though behind these. I'm focused on an outcome of ... "can cover distance" + "mixed terrain urban riding" + "playful" without really caring about what the numbers need to be to get there.

In my limited knowledge:

Admittedly I'm not too familiar with the importance of front center other than stability for speed downhill

HTA I understand affects stability downhill, rollover and steering precision/speed/twitchiness = higher for my purpose

Chainstays affect playfulness/poppiness = short for my purpose

STA affects pedalability and comfort = conservative-steep for my purpose

Seat tube affects clearance for dropper posts = short because I'm short

Stack affects bar height/comfort in relation to seat and hands - feet dimension

Reach affects hip angles and stretch to bars relative to STA, seat height and Stack.

I'm trying to model stack and reach based on RAD using the leelikesbikes ridelogic sizing calculator. The issue I'm having is that unless I run 100mm travel forks on this steepish HTA I'm going to be quite far from the ideal RAD:










The other option being to invert the handlebars. It's a shame bikecad cant model the RAD i.e. bb-bar grip.

The other decisions I need to make but don't quite understand the impacts of are bb offset and 44mm vs tapered headtube.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Don't use RAD, it's worse than nothing.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

scottzg said:


> Don't use RAD, it's worse than nothing.


Lol oh well that changes the way I've been thinking. Are there any other systems worth considering in your experience? Just want to nail the fit on this frame.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Spent a little more time on this. Slackened out the HTA a little to bring the stack down slightly. Shortened the HT and added in the headset dimensions. Also penciled in 2.6" wide tyres and offset the seat tube slightly to accommodate.

I'm concerned by the stack still being somewhat high compared to my current bikes and the reach being longer than my current bikes.

0% sag








25mm sag








120mm sag








If someone with a better understanding of geometry than I could take a look and comment on the expected riding characteristics of the frame I'd really appreciate it.

Long distance rides (30-50kms)?
Urban/Gravel/Singletrack handling?
Playfulness/skills (manuals, bunny hops, jumps)?

Thanks heaps.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Much better work on the print.

You only need to focus on 25-30% sag dimensions.

1. Change the head angle to 66-67 degrees. It's way too steep.
2. Your chainstay are way too long for your height. You want to get down to 410mm with 29" a 29" wheel but you are probably into 27.5" territory so maybe 405mm.

3. Bend the seat tube. Period.

4. Your effective seat tube angle is way too steep for long rides. Get it down to 74-73.5 degrees.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Also, your handlebars look quite high. Consider going to a 90mm head tube. You can go even shorter than 90mm (85mm) but few builders can do that kind of work.

You can try to approximate your fit by using a trick that I recently discussed. The key to fit is to focus on your hand grips, saddle, and pedals. Other placements are part of handling.

I'm soooo RAD! | Peter Verdone Designs

Also, be warned to use good cockpit part dimensions....

Bars, stems, and spacers | Peter Verdone Designs


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

pvd said:


> You only need to focus on 25-30% sag dimensions.


Designing around sag is a terrible way to go about it. Clearly it works for you, but it's not a good suggestion for newbies.

-0% sag is hugely important; it determines how steep you can climb seated, and it's easily repeatable. Heck 100% is more useful than some number in the middle.
-25% is an arbitrary amount, and not a useful one. It's like, standing in the attack position on level ground? You're closer to the 50% when descending, and 10% when you're seated on flat ground.
-it conflates spring ramp, suspension behavior, and geometry when you're actually riding on the trail. It won't necessarily produce consistent results from bike to bike or fork to fork.
-production geo is almost always listed unsagged, so designing sagged makes it difficult to extrapolate from what's out there. (no problem for you, obviously!)

This is just IMO, but i think it's pretty clear-cut.



crembz said:


> Lol oh well that changes the way I've been thinking. Are there any other systems worth considering in your experience? Just want to nail the fit on this frame.


Do you have a 26 or 650b (because stack) bike where the distance from the handlebars to the seat feels just right? Maybe something close, where you can swap a stem in (or mount a seatpost backward) to see how that cockpit length feels? You can use any bike to figure out how you want the rider compartment and handlebar drop, and then export that number to your custom frame and design around it.

That's how i do it, anyway. I like being able to ride around a bunch with the actual fit, rather than taking a guess with a calculator.

It's a bummer you're stuck with a straight seat tube and 430mm reach/chainstays.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

scottzg said:


> .
> -production geo is almost always listed unsagged...


Product managers and marketing people don't have any clue about bike geometry or design and that is make very clear by how they list the specs. Anyone would do well to ignore all marketing material.

I've studied this subject. I've written about it at length. I use 30% sag when designing hardtails and this has been very useful.


----------



## EatsDirt (Jan 20, 2014)

pvd said:


> Product managers and marketing people don't have any clue about bike geometry or design and that is make very clear by how they list the specs. Anyone would do well to ignore all marketing material.
> 
> I've studied this subject. I've written about it at length. I use 30% sag when designing hardtails and this has been very useful.


If everything you do and think is so far superior, why is it that you are just a guy shaking a stick online?

Serious question.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Thanks very much for contributing, truly appreciate the differing perspectives on this.



pvd said:


> Much better work on the print.
> 
> You only need to focus on 25-30% sag dimensions.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the insights. I assume your recommended changes are at 25% sag? i.e. 67* @ 25% sag?

I'm working within the limits of the frame builder at the moment, thus the 430mm chainstays and straight seat tube. I'm not comfortable with the stack and reach as it is quite far away from why I currently ride and find comfortable.

I have posed the questions to the frame builder as I think it would open up the design quite a bit.



scottzg said:


> Do you have a 26 or 650b (because stack) bike where the distance from the handlebars to the seat feels just right? Maybe something close, where you can swap a stem in (or mount a seatpost backward) to see how that cockpit length feels? You can use any bike to figure out how you want the rider compartment and handlebar drop, and then export that number to your custom frame and design around it.
> 
> That's how i do it, anyway. I like being able to ride around a bunch with the actual fit, rather than taking a guess with a calculator.
> 
> It's a bummer you're stuck with a straight seat tube and 430mm reach/chainstays.


I do have a nukeproof scout 275 and a spec enduro 29 both in a small. Interestingly the spec sheets show them as having a similar stack of 606 & 608mm respectively. Reach is 400 & 415 respectively.

I have however put a 29er front on the nukeproof and a 650b rear on the enduro which in both cases would have increased stack, I estimate stack on nukeproof is roughly 617mm now with a reach of 386mm.

Agreed, I'm thinking if I'm stuck with 430 reach/chainstays it may not get to me to where I need to be. Might as well buy something off the shelf, question there is what.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

You're really going to have to go with 29"F/27.5"R. That will open up a bit of room and make this a much better bike for you. You'll be able to shorten the stays 25mm and slack out the seat tube without bending.

Also, 31.6mm seatpost or it didn't happen. 170mm is probably a good stroke.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> You're really going to have to go with 29"F/27.5"R. That will open up a bit of room and make this a much better bike for you. You'll be able to shorten the stays 25mm and slack out the seat tube without bending.
> 
> Also, 31.6mm seatpost or it didn't happen. 170mm is probably a good stroke.


Interesting, the reason I thought 29er f/r for this bike is to cover distance. Serious question ... In my understanding, putting a 650b back on the rear will negate this objective would it not? In which case a 650b may actually be a better choice than a mullet? I hear what you're saying though.

31.6 and 170mm seat post is exactly what I run on the Scout.

In fact this build is looking more and more like a nukeproof scout mullet ... Oh wait I have one of those lol ?.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

If the bike doesn't fit you, it doesn't matter how rad your kit is. The speed will have to come from optimising your saddle and bar placement. Let the wheels do what they need to do without ruining that.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> If the bike doesn't fit you, it doesn't matter how rad your kit is. The speed will have to come from optimising your saddle and bar placement. Let the wheels do what they need to do without ruining that.


Agreed, what I'm getting at is whether there is any benefit in a 29er front for this application if going with a 650b rear?

It's looking like I'll need to use a bent seat tube or a very offset bb to get a 29er to work for me. Or as you say use a smaller wheels.

20mm bb offset assuming 2.4" 29er:


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

1. Yes. You want a 29" wheel up front. You only have space for a 27.5" rear. 29"F/27.5"R is the way to go.

2. Shrink the head tube to 90mm

3. Fix your hand grip position. It's still way too high for the uses you claim. See my post on PVD-RAD.

4. Clean up your dimensioning of the fork and show the bike with 25-30% sag.


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

Well well pvd I don't credit you readily, but here you are with a useful, _specific_ feedback post. Nice


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

For reference,
This is a smaller bike we made for my buddy.
It's a 150mm 29er. The goal was enduro/trials/flat pedals. It was a very challenging design for me. Mixing the needs of enduro with the needs of fancy stunt riding stuff. High bb for the flat pedals and for big hops. It's not for huge pedal rides but it works pretty good.

You won't be able to do what we did but it's the closest that I can reference of current design.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Thanks for the pointers! You cad skills are obviously much better than mine  I can't seem to select wheelbase height etc, I'm guessing that's because I'm using a free version.

I'll try clean things up as best I can. I'm not sure how else to manipulate the grip positions other than reducing the head tube length. I have them at 0mm rise and a slight backsweep. Negative rise stem/handlebars maybe? I was thinking of dropping to a 100mm fork to help bring the front down. Going to a 650b rear makes the front end higher again.

I read your article on RAD and I do understand the concept. The challenge is the angle inputs as you mention. Without a RAAD similar to the llb method, it's going to be difficult for plebs like me to apply the formula even if we get the arm socket measurement right.

Hear back from the builder and I'm not limited to the reach, head tube or chainstay as I thought. They also do bent seat tubes. That should help open up a few possibilities.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Having heard back from the builder I've now updated the design to include a bent seat tube, inverted bars, shorter head tube and chainstay and slightly slacker STA and HTA. Here's what it looks like @ 20% (30mm) sag.

I can't seem to increase the saddle-bar drop without

a) reducing fork travel or increasing hta
b) reducing bb drop/increasing bb height


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Give the PVD/RAD a try. It may help. Have a bro help you.

Also, get the head angle down to 66-67 degrees to add some length to your front center. You should be able to get to 750mm at least.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> Give the PVD/RAD a try. It may help. Have a bro help you.
> 
> Also, get the head angle down to 66-67 degrees to add some length to your front center. You should be able to get to 750mm at least.


I've slackened it out an extra degree, could go more but I really don't want this to feel like my 'hardcore' hardtail lol. It's at 66* static, 735mm F-C.















Re PVD/RAD ... how best to work through the angle inputs? If I could plug my measurements into the formula using a 'generic' angle inputs that would take out a ton of faffing around.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

I tried to have a go at the PVD-RAD. The arm socket measurement I sure with a bit of guidance can be taken fairly easily.

Unless I'm understanding it wrong, the angles are a little trickier though. For the sake of accuracy you'd really need to setup a trainer and a camera positioned precisely perpendicular to the bike/rider, like in a fitting setup. Having a mate guess the angles as you coast along is a ymmv measure ... or my mate is an idiot.


----------



## VegasSingleSpeed (May 5, 2005)

You have measured the three side-lengths of a triangle...you can calculate the angles.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)




----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

I must be missing something.

I have socket to sole and socket to grip measurements.

The two angle inputs in bold need to be measured of an existing bike is that correct?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

You can use those angles from a similar bike ridden in a similar way by another rider. That's the whole point. A translational methodology.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> You can use those angles from a similar bike ridden in a similar way by another rider. That's the whole point. A translational methodology.


Ok so help me understand what I'm seeing here:









As I'm understanding this, the major assumption is that the angles are from someone on a similar bike with a similar riding style is that right? Without an actual measurement or a library of measurements to lookup, it may not give valid results.

I can see how this would be useful to a fitter or frame builder who has an innate knowledge and experience working with hundreds of riders and angles.

If so the final two measurements are either bb-grips or are they bb-virtualGripInterestion (somewhere around the middle of the bars)? In either case I would need to really calculate my angles on a known good fitting bike to make this work, am I correct?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

We are still working on parameter values. This system is very new but shows promise.

For now, copy my Warbird values. That should be close to a relaxed fit for a younger rider that wants to rail also.

The goal is to get the dimension to the center of the end of the hand grip.


----------



## VegasSingleSpeed (May 5, 2005)

Measure all side-lengths shown in diagram:

-Sole to Shoulder
-Arm length (shoulder to grip)
-Sole to Grip (direct measurement with pedal at bottom-dead center)
-Sole to grip horizontal distance
-Sole to grip vertical distance

Calculate angles a and c using the law of cosines; c is your arm angle from your body (B2 in PVDs spreadsheet). Calculate angle b using trigonometry, using the sole to grip distance (your hypotenuse for this right-triangle) and your choice of the pedal to grip horizontal or vertical distance. Angles a + b gives you the body angle (B1 in PVDs spreadsheet).


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

So plugging those in get me:

Bottom Bracket to Grip X	432.72
Bottom Bracket to Grip Y	535.43

Looking at the latest design I'd need to be concerned with the height of the bars more-so than the reach correct?


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Also, do you intend PVD-RAD applied to sagged designs or static?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

For hardtails and FS bikes, sagged.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Understood thanks, so I have those two figures in hand now, how can I check it against my current design? From what I can tell in bikecad the only measurements available to me are bb to bar (x) & . But this looks like its measuring to the middle of the bar at the stem. All other options are greyed out to me. 

There is an 'end of handlebar reach' and stack measurement greyed out though


----------



## VegasSingleSpeed (May 5, 2005)

You can approximate the grip position by subtracting the swept distance from the bar center on the horizontal distance. You can approximate the sole position by adding the cranklength (minus pedal stack) to the vertical distance.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

VegasSingleSpeed said:


> You can approximate the grip position by subtracting the swept distance from the bar center on the horizontal distance. You can approximate the sole position by adding the cranklength (minus pedal stack) to the vertical distance.


I'm not sure at which point I should be adding the cranklength. Let's work through this:









My calculated numbers:

BB-Grip x: 433
BB-Grip y: 535

vs the as designed measurements

BB-HB x:474
BB-HB y:643

I have measured my bars as having 60mm backsweep and 20mm rise over 750mm width I have mounted the upside down to bring the BB-HB y value down.

474 - 60 = ~414mm BB-Grip x
643 - 20 = ~623mm BB-Grip y

dBBGripx = 433-414 = 19mm 
dBBGripy = 535-643 = -108mm <-is this what I need to add cranklength to?

BB-Grip x is 18m shorter than my calculated measurements. I'm thinking this is fine as I can use a longer stem and this isn't a completely accutate model(I used 35mm stem in that example)

BB-Grip y is 108mm higher than what I calculated. I am assuming this could be a problem.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

VegasSingleSpeed said:


> View attachment 1301409
> 
> 
> Measure all side-lengths shown in diagram:
> ...


I missed that entire post ... that's an excellent description. I'll give it a go.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

This is an awful lot of discussion to basically be trying to design my Karate Monkey without just looking at Surly's geo chart and inputting the numbers from my Karate Monkey into your software.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Lol I just looked at the surly chart and realised the deisgn is looking somewhat similar.

How does the KM ride in your opinion? Would it suit street/fun/skills type of riding? I thought it was more of a bikepacking bike.

The other bike I was thinking of was the chameleon.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Did some more playing and from what I'm seeing I'm getting further and further away from my original intentions. I don't look at this a think of long distance street riding for some reason:

Static:







Sag:








Compared to this:

Static:







Sag:


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

twodownzero said:


> .... discussion to basically be trying to design my Karate Monkey ....


This is nothing like a Karate Monkey. We generally don't waste money to copy the terrible Surly products.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

What's all that fork travel and front center for if you want:



> Comfortable for 30-50km rides around town at moderate pace (sealed & gravel surfaces)
> Must be playful and handle a few light jumps, bunny hops etc


To me this is a bike with a rigid fork and 650b x 65mm Schwalbe G-One Speeds. I'd drop the trail and pull in the front center and run some narrower bars.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

twodownzero said:


> This is an awful lot of discussion to basically be trying to design my Karate Monkey without just looking at Surly's geo chart and inputting the numbers from my Karate Monkey into your software.





dr.welby said:


> What's all that fork travel and front center for if you want:
> 
> To me this is a bike with a rigid fork and 650b x 65mm Schwalbe G-One Speeds. I'd drop the trail and pull in the front center and run some narrower bars.


I agree. This discussion doesn't fit OP's needs or interests.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

That's what I mean the more this progresses the further from my original intentions this seems to be getting.

Originally I was looking at a short travel xc bike but didn't think rear suspension was necessary or even desirable for such an application.



dr.welby said:


> What's all that fork travel and front center for if you want:
> 
> To me this is a bike with a rigid fork and 650b x 65mm Schwalbe G-One Speeds. I'd drop the trail and pull in the front center and run some narrower bars.


Sounds like you're describing my cx bike with 650b/fat tyres and a flat bar which I had also thought about.

I do want some front travel, I do plan some light singletrack and just general versatility. Maybe I need to dial it back to 100mm.


----------



## compositepro (Jun 21, 2007)

I’m running a 29er wheel out back and a 26 wheel on the front of my xc rig. It means I’m almost horizontal to the ground when climbing steep terrain which is a great position to shave seconds off my ride and make me feel like Nino Schurter. Going downhill can be a painful experience though so I run BMX riser bars to compensate.


----------



## twodownzero (Dec 27, 2017)

pvd said:


> This is nothing like a Karate Monkey. We generally don't waste money to copy the terrible Surly products.


I don't know who "we" is but it appears if you scroll up and read, I'm not the only one who thinks this is pretty close on the relevant details. That said, there isn't going to be anything but Surly steel bicycles in my garage for a long time, unless I hit the lottery or something. I do enjoy lurking here and admiring the designs, though.



crembz said:


> Lol I just looked at the surly chart and realised the deisgn is looking somewhat similar.
> 
> How does the KM ride in your opinion? Would it suit street/fun/skills type of riding? I thought it was more of a bikepacking bike.
> 
> The other bike I was thinking of was the chameleon.


The Karate Monkey is a great bike overall. There's really no trail that I'd be willing to ride that I would be unwilling to ride my KM on, although certainly there are places where a full squish is more comfortable or more fun. The Karate Monkey is, first and foremost, a trail bike. I'm not saying you couldn't take it bikepacking, but there are other Surly bikes that are a better fit for that (ECR).

I don't ride or look at aluminum bicycles so you'll have to ask someone else about the Chameleon. Santa Cruz generally makes a good riding bicycle though, so I'm sure it's fine.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

twodownzero said:


> I don't know who "we" is...


If you have no understanding of what we are talking about, please don't bother commenting. Your statements make no sense. Surely frames are both terrible and nothing like this bike.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Happy new year to you all! And thank you for continuing to help me!

I've heard back from two frame builders, one does heat treated steel the other titanium. Steel being just under 1/2 the cost of the ti option. So I need to decide on that too.

As for the design I have seemed to hit a 100mm head tube length minimum constraint with the steel frame builder. The ti builder hasn't mentioned any limitations.

So I'm refactoring my design to cater for the 100mm headtube and looking to minimise bar height by using a slammed headset.

The Steel builder also does 2 frames for the one shipping price ... which makes ordering 2 frames really really tempting lol. A do-it-al and an AM


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

So I've tweaked a little further now with a 100mm headtube, and assuming a cane creek slamset headset to minimise handlebar height. Dropped the saddle height slightly and tweaked the seat tube angles to achieve roughly a 590mm ETT.

I've ended up with two designs.

120mm travel 67* HTA (I believe this will also work with 130mm and 100mm forks), 2.4" tyre clearance. Sagged geo:









130mm travel 65.5* HTA 2.8* tyre clearance. Sagged geo:









The front triangle should match my dimensions from what I can calculate and seem to line up well with pvd-rad calcs.

@pvd, the are way off llb-rad but I'll go with them. They do deviate from my current bikes in reach but about 30-40mm but the ETT is roughly the same.

I really need to bed down which of these concepts to pull the trigger on. The slacker longer design reminds me of my nukeproof scout but I'm hoping the short chainstays make it a little poppier.

The 120mm design looks a lot more to me like an all rounder, Chameleon/Honzo type bike.

Easy solution is just get both but N+2=sleeping in the garage I think.

I'm still a little concerned the reach is a little long to what I'm used to


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Your drawings have an issue upfront. You've dimentioned the fork incorrectly and the hta does not correspond to what you are saying it is. Resubmit.

Also, based on what you wanted the bike to do, you should have a 29" front wheel. That's important.

Your seat tube angle is too steep for your stated needs. The head angle is a steep odd number. Round it to 67.0.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

crembz said:


> I'm still a little concerned the reach is a little long to what I'm used to


You're used to garbage. Make this better.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

crembz said:


> ... to achieve roughly a 590mm ETT. ...but about 30-40mm but the ETT is roughly the same....


WTF is "ETT"? We don't use anything called ETT when designing bicycle frames. I suggest you disregard any reference to that.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Thanks for the candid guidance, honestly appreciate it, this has been a steep learning curve for me  Thank you for bearing with me.



pvd said:


> WTF is "ETT"? We don't use anything called ETT when designing bicycle frames. I suggest you disregard any reference to that.


I was using this to help understand the pedalling position in relation to the handlebars and also the bb. Not having BikeCAD Pro I can't look at the saddleTip-BB x value. The frame builder will be drawing this up themselves and working through the finer details.



pvd said:


> You're used to garbage. Make this better.


:blush:



pvd said:


> Your drawings have an issue upfront. You've dimentioned the fork incorrectly and the hta does not correspond to what you are saying it is. Resubmit.
> 
> Also, based on what you wanted the bike to do, you should have a 29" front. T wheel hat's important.
> 
> Your seat tube angle is too steep for your stated needs. The head angle is a steep odd number. Round it to 67.0.


Oh sorry I was stating static dimensions. I've changed the fork lower dimensions: Design A assuming a 120mm 29" Reba (526mm A2C) and Design B a 130mm 29" Revelation (531mm A2C) and assumed 20% sag 24 & 26mm respectively.

I've dimensioned 622mm ERD which I thought was 29" no?. I'm using this chart: https://www.bikecalc.com/wheel_size_math . to work this all out. I'm trying to squeeze 2.4 & 2.8" tyres into each respective design but I fully intend to run 2.2" or thinner for my purpose. I just want the versatility should I need it.

The steep seat-tube is being driven by rear tyre clearance at the moment. I've slackened it out to 74* and add 5mm of additional offset into the bend for design A but any less and I'm showing interference. Without increasing the bend/seat tube offset or chainstay length, I'm not sure how much slacker I can go. I am planning to use sliding dropouts which should allow me to fine tune the seat-tube length according to the tyre size from what I understand.

I've dropped to the one design, using a 120mm fork. Here is the updated drawing:










I'm thinking if I did decide to put a 130mm fork on afterwards it would look like this which is still acceptable I think:


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

You are dimentioning the fork incorrectly. Fix that.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

You need to use a 27.5" rear wheel and a 29" front wheel. You don't have the room for a large rear wheel unless you put a real bend in the seat tube. You need at least 10mm of gap to be good.

The right way to build and spec bent seat tubes | Peter Verdone Designs

Professional Seat Tube Design | Peter Verdone Designs


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> You are dimentioning the fork incorrectly. Fix that.


I'm honestly lost here, I'm not sure what I need to fix. I have the hta, a2c & offset from the rockshox specs and 20% sag.



pvd said:


> You need to use a 27.5" rear wheel and a 29" front wheel. You don't have the room for a large rear wheel unless you put a real bend in the seat tube. You need at least 10mm of gap to be good.
> 
> The right way to build and spec bent seat tubes | Peter Verdone Designs
> 
> Professional Seat Tube Design | Peter Verdone Designs


I'll have a little more of a play when I get home. I'd rather keep the 29 rear and work on that post. Thanks for the links I'll have a read.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

I've been following this one from the beginning.



crembz said:


> Hi there,
> 
> I'm trying to design a custom frame to get made up as an all purpose fun hardtail.
> 
> ...


Just reminding you where you started and what you're asking for. Frankly I don't understand why you can't find a fun bike that will suit your needs without going custom? You're not asking for anything super unique. There are so many good hardtails that are readily available, nothing you've described here demands a custom build.

Normal-ish body proportions and Green/Blue trails don't require aggressive/progressive/custom geometry. I can do casual, mixed surface rides on any MTB I own.

The two bikes you reference, Chameleon and DV9, are not very similar but either one will easily do what you're asking for. "paved and gravel surfaces"

I'm not trying to discourage you from buying a custom frame, just pointing out that the tires you're running are probably more important than custom geometry if you're just looking for a comfortable bike you can bomb around on on the weekends. Literally any hardtail on the market will do what you asking for.

So my question is: what are you looking for that the DV9 or Chameleon don't offer? You said there's nothing available locally, where are you located and what brands are available at you local bike shops? What about the available bikes don't you like and why do you think you need a custom frame?


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

*OneSpeed* said:


> I've been following this one from the beginning.
> 
> Just reminding you where you started and what you're asking for. Frankly I don't understand why you can't find a fun bike that will suit your needs without going custom? You're not asking for anything super unique. There are so many good hardtails that are readily available, nothing you've described here demands a custom build.
> 
> ...


Hey thanks for the input. I am relatively short, wide, long arm span and have poor flexibility (trying to work on that)

I'm in Australia, down south. If I could get a chameleon or dv9 or air9 frameset locally at a reasonable price I would. I'd lean towards the chameleon or air 9 rather than the dv9.

The mainstream brands are available pretty easily

Spec
Giant
Merida
Norco
Trek
Cannondale
Scott

Then there are the online only manufacturers

Canyon
Rocky mountain
Marin

Outside of that you're hunting down obscure lbs with very limited stocks, high prices and long wait times.

Why I decided custom:

Framesets are very difficult to find especially in alu or steel. I don't need a whole bike just the frame.

Hardtails are not very popular, apart from entry level mtbs and high end xcmachines it's hard to find anything else

Local distributors rarely carry the entire product line from a given manufacturer.

Boutique manufactures like SC and ibis cost a ridiculous premium.

It's cheaper, easier and quicker for me to get a custom steel frame built.

Of the mainstream manufacturers I think the spec fuse 29er is the only frameset that's close to what I'm looking for. Again though custom is cheaper.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

Ok, good feedback. Is there a bike you really like the geometry of?

What are you riding now? Have you test ridden any new "modern" bikes?



> The mainstream brands are available pretty easily
> 
> Spec
> Giant
> ...


None of these brands offer a frame you like? Is there a geometry you like that you could copy?


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

*OneSpeed* said:


> Ok, good feedback. Is there a bike you really like the geometry of?
> 
> What are you riding now? Have you test ridden any new "modern" bikes?
> 
> None of these brands offer a frame you like? Is there a geometry you like that you could copy?


I started this whole exercise in search of a Chameleon 29. From everything I have read it sounds like it will do just what I want with the right wheelset ... distance/endurance, skills, singletrack. I thought I could get that made up with a shorter chainstay and call it a day. Then I started going down the rabbit hole hahaha. It's been a really good learning experience though.

Right now I ride a Nukeproof scout 275 and a 2019 Spec Enduro 29 both in Sml. They both modern-ish geometries but neither is extreme.

Of the available brands only the Specialised Fuse is obtainable as a frameset and comes close to what I'm looking for. It would cost about USD200 more than custom steel. Other than that there seem to be very limited few hardtail builds that are not XC ... Marin Nail Trail is probably one of the few.

There are the online only options from abroad ... Production Privee, Pole, Stanton, Cotic etc ... again though, more costly than custom.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

OK so I've tried further tweaking ... and here's where I'm at.

@pvd is the sag what you were pointing out needed to be fixed? That has been shifted to 25% of a 130mm fork (32.5"). I tried putting a bigger bend in, aiming for 90* from the chainstay as per what I understood from your article.

I'm using 130mm because I have a perfectly good one I can measure up here.










If anyone is interested, this is what it looks like without sag:










This gets within range of pvd-rad. With the illustrated bar and stem it is in line with llb-rad.

Seems pretty slack @ 65.5* static.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

The fork is still dimensions incorrectly and it's annoying AF. Hard to get past that.

I don't understand why you are concerned about the head angle without any weight on the front end.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

I'm not sure what I need to fix with that fork. If you could help me understand which measurement I've screwed up I'd happily correct it

Re: head angle, I'm just comparing it to the geometry of the bikes I already have. Afaik the specialised and nukeproof geometry charts are static (no sag). The spec is 65.5* and the nukeproof 65*. It was my understanding that these sort of headangles usually excel at descending over other aspects I would have thought important. 

Again though appreciate the assistance and happy to talk your lead.


----------



## crank1979 (Feb 3, 2006)

crembz said:


> I'm not sure what I need to fix with that fork. If you could help me understand which measurement I've screwed up I'd happily correct it.


The dimension lines are not parallel to the centre axis of the fork leg, and the leader lines are not perpendicular to the centre axis.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Using bikeCAD's quite-literally axle-to-crown dimension settings results in numbers 2.5mm different from the perpendicular measurement, numbers which are completely lost in bike setup.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Like this then?










I had select "Fork Length (Axle to Crown)" which doesn't seem to draw them parallel.










I noticed the 2.5mm difference myself.

The Fox spec drawings also look like they measure A2C parallel to the fork also so I decided to use Length as a dimension instead of AC in BikeCAD.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Off topic, there are several important dimensions I don't have access to in the free version of bikeCAD, most notably effective seat tube angle. There are a few others that would be useful to be able to draw.

If only bikeCAD had a non-commercial (enthusiast license), maybe limited to saving a couple of frames. I'd gladly pay $50 or so to use on a single design. CAD500 is simply too much for a pleb like me to pay to hack around in for a single design.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

wait wait- are y'all fussing over the difference between fork length and axle-to-crown... while sagged some random amount?? :skep:


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

scottzg said:


> wait wait- are y'all fussing...


A print is right or it's wrong. I'm not interested in guessing as nothing is learned.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

crembz said:


> Like this then?


That's starting to look like an actual print.

* The '585mm' dimension should be removed as it is meaningless.
* The '104mm' dimension should be removed as it is meaningless.
* Stack and reach numbers should be replaced with handlebar end measures.

The large rear wheel is going to drag on your ass if you are really sessioning hard but if you aren't going big then that won't be a concern.

It's certainly looking closer and worth ensuring exact fit.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> That's starting to look like an actual print.
> 
> * The '585mm' dimension should be removed as it is meaningless.
> * The '104mm' dimension should be removed as it is meaningless.
> ...


Thanks for that, I feel like I'm getting there, I've tidied it up. I hear you re: big back wheel, My enduro 29 I run a 650b rear. Likelihood is I'll run a skinnier tyre in the rear but I'd rather keep the big wheel.

I don't have access to the handlebar end measurements in free bikeCAD unfortunately.

The best I can do is compare handlebar to bb (x) &  measurements in bikeCAD and removing setback and rise with pvd-rad & llb-rad:



















From what I can tell, I'm close enough to correct with stem length and bar rise and backsweep.










Shifting focus a little to the saddle position, what is the best way to ensure the correct saddle position. I'm using saddle-clamp to bb (x) which looks a little on the short side compared to my current bikes. I don't subscribe to KOPS but I do try to make sure my knee falls behind the pedal spindal. Any further forward and I get cramps up my lower leg through my ankles.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

crembz said:


> I don't subscribe to KOPS but I do try to make sure my knee falls behind the pedal spindal. Any further forward and I get cramps up my lower leg through my ankles.


All of that is 100% wrong. Your knees don't care where the ground is. You should study up on what is going on. Here's a quick tip, knees bent at 150 degrees, saddle as forward as your arms can handle for the duration of the event. That's what's going to make you fast. Moving the saddle back, that gets the weight off your arms for the long rides. You need to play with that. Forget about using plumb bobs. That's terrible.



crembz said:


> I don't have access to the handlebar end measurements in free bikeCAD unfortunately.


Solve this problem.



crembz said:


> ...


Your fork is a bit long. I think you may want to go down to 100mm of travel. A 100mm Reba fits within the scope of the bike's use, is fairly light, and give you more handlebar room. Don't worry, if you are ripping sick trail, fork travel isn't going to slow you down. Use geometry to go fast instead.

https://www.sram.com/globalassets/d...ir-coil-token-specification-english-rev-a.pdf


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> All of that is 100% wrong. Your knees don't care where the ground is. You should study up on what is going on. Here's a quick tip, knees bent at 150 degrees, saddle as forward as your arms can handle for the duration of the event. That's what's going to make you fast. Moving the saddle back, that gets the weight off your arms for the long rides. You need to play with that. Forget about using plumb bobs. That's terrible.


You're correct my knees don't care, but my lower legs burn up within minutes if I move my saddle too far forward. Again I am very inflexible, my ankle locks out pretty quickly I've been told.

I checked exactly what this meant in relation to saddle and knee position so I could replicate the saddle position between frames ... anything closer than my knee 10mm behind the spindle (20mm from saddle tip to bb (270mm saddle)) and my legs burn up and turn to jelly in minutes. I have used those to replicate my 'ideal sitting position' between frames, just trying to maintain a consistent pedalling position between bikes.

In summary I don't subscribe to KOPS at all, in fact if I used KOPS I wouldn't be able to ride more than 15 minutes at a time. Are you suggesting that the saddle position should not necessarily be kept consistent between bikes given the same rider?

My question is more about how you normally go about deciding on the seat tube position along the x-axis (and thus the saddle position) in relation to the rest of the bike. In my limited knowledge I'm looking at saddle-clamp to bb (x) but is there something else I should be considering?



pvd said:


> Solve this problem.


Not sure how other than shelling out $500 for a single use of an application  I'm sure once I start working with a frame builder they'll be able to draw these up.



pvd said:


> Your fork is a bit long. I think you may want to go down to 100mm of travel. A 100mm Reba fits within the scope of the bike's use, is fairly light, and give you more handlebar room. Don't worry, if you are ripping sick trail, fork travel isn't going to slow you down. Use geometry to go fast instead.
> 
> https://www.sram.com/globalassets/d...ir-coil-token-specification-english-rev-a.pdf


Yes I think that's a good idea. I've been thinking about that I'm glad you've mentioned it too.


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

crembz said:


> Not sure how other than shelling out $500 for a single use of an application  I'm sure once I start working with a frame builder they'll be able to draw these up.


FreeCAD constrained sketch wiring is one option.

SolveSpace is another.

You'll have to put in a lot of work before you get anything useful.

Regarding the trail measurement being useless, PVD is referring to mechanical trail versus ground trail despite him not wanting to just *state* this.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Drew Diller said:


> FreeCAD constrained sketch wiring is one option.
> 
> SolveSpace is another.
> 
> ...


Have to admit, some of this is a little beyond me at this point.

I have more dimensions now. I haven't put the 100mm fork in just yet because according to my rad calculations, this should work. Smaller fork would mean lower front end which might be problematic. For reference my current bikes have the handlebars set 30mm above the seat


----------



## Cord (Dec 10, 2006)

pvd said:


> A print is right or it's wrong. I'm not interested in guessing as nothing is learned.


If accuracy is so important, why work to a sag point and not full extension? And what makes you settle on a certain sag to draw around? 25 30 33%?


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Drew Diller said:


> Regarding the trail measurement being useless, PVD is referring to mechanical trail versus ground trail despite him not wanting to just *state* this.


hahahahaha


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

crembz said:


> I have more dimensions now...


You're effective seat tube angle is all messed up now. 76.4 degrees is suicide. Get it back down to 74 or lower.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Cord said:


> If accuracy is so important, why ....


I'll let you think about this for a while.


----------



## Cord (Dec 10, 2006)

pvd said:


> I'll think about tits for a while.


Nice miss-quote, I see what you did there.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Ok so the effective seat angle has only come into play now, I wasn't able to draw it before. Looks to me like it is being driven by a few things ...

1. My saddle position - tip to bb = 20mm using a specialised henge saddle (same position as my current bikes)
2. The curve on the seattube to clear the large wheel
3. Short chainstays

I've tried tweaking this for 30 minutes ... I don't thinks it's possible to get to a 74* effective seat tube without one or more of these things giving. I can get to 75* if I increase the bend offset and saddle to tip as illustrated:


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

crembz said:


> Ok so the effective seat angle has only come into play now...


That's all I've been talking about. As you've (hopefully) realized, the actual angle means little.

75 degrees is very very steep.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> That's all I've been talking about. As you've (hopefully) realized, the actual angle means little.
> 
> 75 degrees is very very steep.


One of the main reasons why I wanted to get bikeCAD pro, you can't use draw effective seat tube on the free version.

The effective seat angle in bikeCAD is affected by the saddle fore/aft. Should this be set to the riding position or to 0 for the purpose of design?

What would a 75° effective seat tube actually do to the ride?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

* Did you get the pro version? It's definitely a great investment for folks once they realize that geometry and fit actually matter.

* Why haven't you entered the 100mm fork?

* A steep seat angle on a hardtail places a big load onto the arms during the transit sections of a ride. Given how you described your use, this will add up as arms aren't meant to hold a lot of weight. You need to test final fit numbers before building the bike given that you are at the edge of the bell curve and have a special fit.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> * Did you get the pro version? It's definitely a great investment for folks once they realize that geometry and fit actually matter.


Yes I did, I'm using the PRO version thus all the additional dimensions now available to me.



pvd said:


> * Why haven't you entered the 100mm fork?


I mentioned this farther up ... Looking at both PVD-RAD and LLB-RAD ... the 100mm fork would dump my stack height to levels I wasn't sure would end up in range. I currently have my barends setup 30mm above my saddle on my bikes.



pvd said:


> * A steep seat angle on a hardtail places a big load onto the arms during the transit sections of a ride. Given how you described your use, this will add up as arms aren't meant to hold a lot of weight. You need to test final fit numbers before building the bike given that you are at the edge of the bell curve and have a special fit.


Ah OK I understand, pushing the saddle fore-aft back would have the same effect would it not? That depends of course on my previous question which I'm still not sure about "Should this (saddle fore/aft) be set to the riding position or to 0 for the purpose of design?"


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

You should not be referring to LLB-RAD. Its fraudulent. 

PVD-RAD will work if you have parameters correct.

What you need to do is a full fit test protocol. That's where I start.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> You should not be referring to LLB-RAD. Its fraudulent.
> 
> PVD-RAD will work if you have parameters correct.
> 
> What you need to do is a full fit test protocol. That's where I start.


By test fit I assume you mean setting up a point with similarly dimensioned contact points?

I've pulled apart my nukeproof and set the saddle and bars to roughly match the design of this new frame.

The static measurements I took were

4.5mm saddle tip to bb ... same as design
~410mm bb to barend (x) ... less than 10mm longer than design
~620mm bb to barend  ... about 25mm lower than design

The resulting seat tube angle sagged on this setup works out to be about 75.5*

Not 1000% accurate but you get the idea of what I ended up with on the nukeproof.









I've never had my bars setup that low but tbh it didn't feel foreign to me. I rode it around briefly, hands felt a lot less pressure and seat down riding felt HEAPS better than before, a ton more responsive and more connected.

I think it may be worth increasing reach in my new design at the very least.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Last iteration for today. I've increased the reach slightly and that's about it. After the initial success of dropping the bars on my other hardtail I'm planning to take a closer look at both my other setups to bring them closer to my RAD measurement which seemed quite comfortable and increased control and agility out of the saddle a lot.

RAD Measurements:

Bottom Bracket to Grip Distance	752.94
Bottom Bracket to Grip Angle	56.70
Bottom Bracket to Grip X	413.40
Bottom Bracket to Grip Y	629.30

Design as it stands right now:









Static view:









Out of curiosity I check out what would happen if I just threw a shorter fork in:

















Still doesn't look disastrous


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

You want to ride these prototype fits on the trails as you expect to, make notes and adjustments from there. 3 hours on a fit riding is priceless.

Also, https://www.syntace.com/en_GB/products/stems/mountain-bike/2988/flatforce-44?c=77


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

pvd said:


> Also, https://www.syntace.com/en_GB/products/stems/mountain-bike/2988/flatforce-44?c=77


Ooooo. _That_ is handy...


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

FSA also has the SL-K Drop stem in -20d x 50mm. It's not clear how they measure the length.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

dr.welby said:


> FSA also has the SL-K Drop stem in -20d x 50mm. It's not clear how they measure the length.


Yeah I may have to get creative with the front end of all my bikes. I found this also: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/KRSEC-1...-MTB-XC-Road-Bike-bar-Stem-Skull/273787498279

Enduro, Looks like I'll need to:
Slam the stem
Swap out the stem from 40mm to 60mm with a negative rise 
Use inverted risers (-20mm)

Scout
Slam the stem and use a flat bar
Or
20mm spacers and use and inverted riser (20mm)

Custom will similarly need to be slammed and an inverted riser to be used.

I can't seem to get the syntace or FAS locally, Closest I've found online is a BMX stem https://www.pushys.com.au/cult-bmx-forged-salvation-stem-black.html


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Ok so I must have misinterpreted or measured myself wrong, in doublechecking my numbers I had to change socket to grip down by 50mm to 570mm from 620 which gives me:










This changes a few things, namely the saddle-bar drop and front-center ... hrm


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

Keep it up - the tweeking that is. Setting up the 'mule' to confirm the changes - worthwhile.
If you have an impediment - cramps - these things do dictate some design challenges, but keep working on the things you can change. KOPS is rubbish, glad to see you dropped the theory. I don't think that 75* is too steep personally, but thats my opinion. Again, trial and error - push the saddle forward to emulate a steeper ST angle and ride. If you cramp, return it to original position. With a shorter leg length, 1 degree of seat tube angle does not translate out to a lot in terms of saddle placement and sometimes means diddly-squat. You can do more with a set-back seat stem vrs in-line. I use an ISM saddle and it projects me at least 50mm further forward than a standard saddle as an example. There lots of ways to play with the numbers, but wheel clearance at the seat stem would feature high on the list. Using 29" wheels, I get the drift of keeping tyre size at 2", not much in the 650B around 2", but if you use a dropper post, a bit of space would be handy. If you were just doing gravel - no problem, but you want to play, so this adds that fuller mtb bike to the project.

Eric


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Thanks for the encouragement. I thought I was close to getting everything bedded down any ready to be built. 

I've modelled my other bikes in bikecad so I can figure out how to match the contact points to test ride. Across ALL my bikes, at my saddle height, PVD-RAD puts my bars between .5-10mm above my saddle which is probably about 10-15mm lower than I have had them setup in the past. . I ran the same exercise using LLB-RAD Pro (where you use your measurements instead of the formula) out of curiosity and the two differ in reach by about 6mm but stack is practically the same. I found that interesting. 

So at this point, I'm thinking the design is at a point where fit can be accomplished with the right bars/stems. Is this a good place to be or should I be looking to test/refine and tweak the design farther?

Yeah plumbline = saddle position in reference to the bb to me ... which in my case ends up with my knee about 10mm behind the spindle. That's where my bike fit put me. My saddle position creates a 75.7* effective angle anyway if I'm to maintain that position across all my bikes so the steep STA is of no consequence. So long as the frame can accomodate that with enough room for the rear tyre I'm happy. Looking at my current hardtail, I'd say I'm at the limit on this design with how steep I can run this seat tube while maintaining my saddle position.

The end plan is to run a dropper post (inline seat clamp). I'd like to keep the option to run wider tyres in the frame but will settle on something in the 2.0 - 2.2 range. I run a 650B rear on my Enduro 29 so I'd really like to keep this as a full 29er. I'll be running a 12sp groupset with a 34t chainring.

As for components, I already have most everything I need apart from a headset.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

crembz said:


> So at this point, I'm thinking the design is at a point where fit can be accomplished with the right bars/stems. Is this a good place to be or should I be looking to test/refine and tweak the design farther?


If this is your first custom frame there's only so much you can accomplish by endless fussing. So long as you've thought through the process and understand what decisions/compromises you made, i think you've got something that will perform as expected. Personally, i think you'll be psyched. By ride #3 you're gonna be fantasizing about mk2 anyway... 

...that bike is gonna render your scout redundant. Good.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

scottzg said:


> If this is your first custom frame there's only so much you can accomplish by endless fussing. So long as you've thought through the process and understand what decisions/compromises you made, i think you've got something that will perform as expected. Personally, i think you'll be psyched. By ride #3 you're gonna be fantasizing about mk2 anyway...
> 
> ...that bike is gonna render your scout redundant. Good.


Yeah this is true ... tbh I was thinking of a 2nd design to effectively half the shipping cost per frame lol.

Question re handlebars: I could possibly go with flat bars slammed to the headset and I'd be just on the RAD measurements. Or I could go with an inverted bar 0f 10 or 20mm which you give me a little more wiggle room to adjust up/down using headset spacers ... which would be the better option?


----------



## Eric Malcolm (Dec 18, 2011)

re: H/bars. Both. In the bigger picture, not a large expense to have one of each. It gives options and easy to swap out. It is a fine tuning area, so what is there to loose?

Eric


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Thanks Eric not a bad idea. 

I want to lower my current bikes while I'm at it also. I'm surprised how much some alloy bars can cost though. Looking at Renthal to minimise backsweep, and there aren't that many flat bars easily available in wider widths. AUD100 each.

Looking at this design a little closer ... I may need to get creative with the chainstays if I want anything wide to clear. A detail I hadn't really considered up to this point.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

crembz said:


> I want to lower my current bikes while I'm at it also.


That might not play out how you hope it will. With small sizes sometimes the compromises in fitting shorter riders balance each other out. Slamming the bars might just make it tough to get the front end up, or make the reach uncomfortably long. At minimum it takes a bit to acclimate to a different riding position. No rush.

Regarding flat bar vs flipped- flipped offers more room to tweak fit, and that's good. But if dropping the bars means they contact the TT then i see that as poor design and of little value. You can maximize clearance by specifying the shortest seat tube that will accommodate a long dropper post.

dropper max lengths-
fox transfer- 505
manitou jack- 500
reverb- 530
xf manic- 490
oneup- 540
pnw- 558

(minus 100mm for insertion)


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Thanks scottzg, I drew each one up in bikeCAD to help understand what they would look like. In both cases reach (to the grips) is shorter than on the custom design and stack about the same. In all cases grips end up just under the saddle.

EDIT: Had to rush off before finishing.

I like the idea of the adjustability with inverted bars, but wow inverted bars look odd. And all the logos are upside down. I know this is a form over function argument, but my OCD will kick in and make me twitch every time I see that lol.

I've heard that I can remove logos with paint stripper or acetone without affecting the anodized finish which might help me get over it.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Compromising fit so that grips or controls won't strike the frame in a crash is foolish. Just prepare for it.

Bean Can Top Tube Armor | Peter Verdone Designs

Fyi, this post is 7 years old. We now make armor from thin stainless steel plate bent perfectly to match the tube. One recent bike had it color matched and taped with a special clear tape.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> Compromising fit so that grips or controls won't strike the frame in a crash is foolish. Just prepare for it.
> 
> Bean Can Top Tube Armor | Peter Verdone Designs
> 
> Fyi, this post is 7 years old. We now make armor from thin stainless steel plate bent perfectly to match the tube. One recent bike had it color matched and taped with a special clear tape.


Interesting, great idea, I was thinking 2 solutions:

A) Roadie bar tape around the area of interference.
B) Keeping controls loose enough to rotate in a crash.

Is this as much of a concern on steel frames vs carbon?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

crembz said:


> I was thinking 2 solutions:
> 
> A) Roadie bar tape around the area of interference.
> B) Keeping controls loose enough to rotate in a crash.
> ...


Novice solutions. They also don't work. Make an armor plate. Done.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Painted to match.









(not my welding or workmanship. A friends bike he built in my shop)


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

I wish I had the skill to pull that off ... tin can and tape it is


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

So I'm pretty comfortable with where this is ending up. I think I will need to run -10mm bars to get the adjustability down to where I need to be. Other than that I think I'll send it to the builder.

I do think I'm going to have an issue with the chainstays being so short and wide tyres. I'm hoping the builder can get creative with that.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Now you need to look at tube diameters.

I suggest 1" top tube, 1.5" down tube, and 0.5" seat stays.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Thanks for the suggestion. 

Tube diameters and their effects on the feel and handling of the bike are way beyond my comprehension to be honest. I was going to rely on the frame building to suggest the appropriate tubes but happy to take your recommendation.

Do you know of any articles you could point me to so that I may school myself on this?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Ha. You just need to use excel and do some calculations.

Here's the bike that I built for my wife just prior to the current era of my designs. The tube diameters are the same that I suggest.

PVD Glamorous Glennis | Peter Verdone Designs

Also, my Bird of Prey is similar but for myself, 205 lbs & 5'10", although this is an all road bike.

2018 PVD Bird of Prey | Peter Verdone Designs


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

I really like the way you bring the seat stays together on those bikes! So clean.

I'm still not quite sure what I need to calculate re: tube diameters. I'm going to guess it's a balancing act between rigidity and weight but I really have no idea what good looks like and why. I'll go by your recommendations as you know what you're talking about, but I'd really like to learn for myself.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

crembz said:


> I really like the way you bring the seat stays together on those bikes! So clean.
> 
> I'm still not quite sure what I need to calculate re: tube diameters. I'm going to guess it's a balancing act between rigidity and weight but I really have no idea what good looks like and why. I'll go by your recommendations as you know what you're talking about, but I'd really like to learn for myself.


PVD's suggestions are solid. Just copy them.

You can do more good for yourself playing with a tube deflection calculator and comparing different size frames and builds, compared to a known excellent frame for you. But the takeaways are
-wall thickness doesn't mean anything compared to tube diameter
-tube length has a significant impact on deflection
-small/medium production frames tend to be hilariously overbuilt
-if you wanted your average 5'4 rider to experience the same ride character as a typical 6'3 rider you'd need to bump up the tube diameters 3-4 sizes.

Weight isn't a major consideration, i don't think. It weighs what it needs to- small riders should have something that is nominally lighter, larger riders something nominally heavier. The difference is small.

'Undersizing' the top tube can make for a more comfortable ride and have positive impact on steering, but it turns in to a negative if you're a sloppy jumper or you're loading the frame with gear. IMO. You want to size the TT for the twisting loads you'd expect to see in use. In your case that probably means going with something weirdly small, as pvd suggests.


----------



## zweeLLAMA (Jan 3, 2020)

Reminds me of a Trek Stache, but in steel. Basically, a big wheeled BMX bike for playing around on.

I tried my hand at modifying your design and, to get the handlebars to be more level with the saddle, I added some length to the bike and slackened the HA and steepened the STA (basically the direction the top general trail bikes are going in). 5mm extra CS should mean less compromise on tire clearance and chainstay structure, and more clearance for the saddle to be slammed before contact with tire (shown with 170mm dropper). I'd call it more like a downsized modern HT...

https://www.bikecad.ca/1578847691404









- @0% sag


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

79 seat angle at zero sag???


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

scottzg said:


> -wall thickness doesn't mean anything compared to tube diameter


The rule of thumb is from a stiffness standpoint going from a thin tube to a thick tube (0.7 to 0.9) is about the same as going up to the next thin wall tubing diameter. The thicker tube will be heavier even though it has a smaller OD. So from a practical standpoint it does mean something.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

dr.welby said:


> 79 seat angle at zero sag???


I hope this bike comes with a 26t chainring, max, for the fall line climbs it's designed for. Otherwise, I'm a bit perplexed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zweeLLAMA (Jan 3, 2020)

dr.welby said:


> 79 seat angle at zero sag???


Can/should go much steeper, esp if the rider stands on pedal with axle mid-foot. Being more similar to the standing position is better. It's a myth that you need two vastly different positions, to give rest to one. Better to train one position more, and the standing position is the one that more people should be working on for MTB.

Steep STA forces the reach longer (in order to make the seated position not cramped). Extra reach makes staying out of the saddle more comfortable on flats and climbs, and makes doing aero tucks more comfortable when descending.

With slack STA, the fork feels too firm when sitting and too wallowy when hammering out of the saddle. Steepening STA reduces the weight shifting that causes this, allowing it to feel better tuned.

What's so alarming? What's the downsides? KOPS? That myth has been debunked. STA are heading to 82+ within 2 years, I guarantee. I bet it won't stop there either; only stopping when the saddle is directly under the rider when they're up hammering.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

dr.welby said:


> The rule of thumb is from a stiffness standpoint going from a thin tube to a thick tube (0.7 to 0.9) is about the same as going up to the next thin wall tubing diameter. The thicker tube will be heavier even though it has a smaller OD. So from a practical standpoint it does mean something.


That's a good guideline.


----------



## rruff (Nov 19, 2019)

crembz said:


> Comfortable for 30-50km rides around town at moderate pace (sealed & gravel surfaces)
> Must be playful and handle a few light jumps, bunny hops etc
> Can venture out onto some singletrack occasionally (blue trails no black)


I'm with *Onespeed* on this... you don't need anything fancy. I don't even see the point of a suspension fork for this kind of riding.

There are lots of Kona dealers in Australia:
https://www.konaworld.com/dealers.cfm

The Unit frame and fork is $599 in the US. https://www.konaworld.com/unit.cfm


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

zweeLLAMA said:


> I bet it won't stop there either; only stopping when the saddle is directly under the rider when they're up hammering.


People who only own one bike and are "hammering" 100% of the time is a questionable niche.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

This is what we'll all be riding in 8 years-


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

scottzg said:


> This is what we'll all be riding in 8 years-


lol

Non-commital Pinkbike review:

Super long wheelbase and the rollover of the massive front wheel allow the bike to plough through gnar. Rapid acceleration from the tiny rear wheel let you blast out of corners and manual like a boss. The unconventional handlebar position took some getting used to but after a few rides it just works. All in all this could be the bike for you, equally suited to both pro's and beginners.


----------



## zweeLLAMA (Jan 3, 2020)

Waste to go custom to get geo that's like something else already mass produced.

Training and endurance in the standing pedaling position transfers to all bikes. Seated training/endurance only transfers to bikes with similar seated position, else it loses some efficiency. Seated makes sense for road where aero gains can be huge. For mtb, with a chainstay and WB so short, you'd be standing for bumps anyways, as they'd buck you out of the seat. More effort to get out of the saddle when the seat is positioned like a lounge chair.

Stache is a better option with how the design looks like now. The quality you get for the price is hard to beat through custom.

Doubt bikes will look anything like that weird thing. Cornering might be better with a slightly smaller rear wheel, but BB drop is a valuable trait for stability. In 8 years, I imagine things will look like a cross between moto and futuristic aero bikes.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

zweeLLAMA said:


> Seated makes sense for road where aero gains can be huge. For mtb, with a chainstay and WB so short, you'd be standing for bumps anyways, as they'd buck you out of the seat.


Did you even read the first post?



> Comfortable for 30-50km rides around town at moderate pace (sealed & gravel surfaces)


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

zweeLLAMA said:


> Waste to go custom to get geo that's like something else already mass produced.
> 
> Training and endurance in the standing pedaling position transfers to all bikes. Seated training/endurance only transfers to bikes with similar seated position, else it loses some efficiency. Seated makes sense for road where aero gains can be huge. For mtb, with a chainstay and WB so short, you'd be standing for bumps anyways, as they'd buck you out of the seat. More effort to get out of the saddle when the seat is positioned like a lounge chair.
> 
> ...


I got you fam.

behold the future


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I’m guessing there is no current mass production “trail” bike with an actual, sagged STA within 3 degrees of this thing. 

Humans with normally proportioned femurs will not like this for actual, real, long bike rides. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

zweeLLAMA said:


> Waste to go custom to get geo that's like something else already mass produced.
> 
> Training and endurance in the standing pedaling position transfers to all bikes. Seated training/endurance only transfers to bikes with similar seated position, else it loses some efficiency. Seated makes sense for road where aero gains can be huge. For mtb, with a chainstay and WB so short, you'd be standing for bumps anyways, as they'd buck you out of the seat.
> 
> Stache is a better option with how the design looks like now.


I mentioned this farther up ... Custom is not only easier to get locally as a frameset than mass produced and in steel it's cheaper too.

I can't get a stache in a frameset here, chameleon is also not in stock etc etc. Specialised Fuse is the only mass produced frame I've found. I can get boutique frames like Nordest, pole, production privee, Stanton etc but custom works out cheaper anyway so why not.

I originally intended to send the builder a chameleon but then began tweaking things. Eg. I like a super short seat tube to fit a bigger dropper (150-170), most frames available to me are 420mm which limits me to about a 100mm dropper.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

zweeLLAMA said:


> ...


Actually, you're not a bike expert | Peter Verdone Designs


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

scottzg said:


> PVD's suggestions are solid. Just copy them.
> 
> You can do more good for yourself playing with a tube deflection calculator and comparing different size frames and builds, compared to a known excellent frame for you. But the takeaways are
> -wall thickness doesn't mean anything compared to tube diameter
> ...





dr.welby said:


> The rule of thumb is from a stiffness standpoint going from a thin tube to a thick tube (0.7 to 0.9) is about the same as going up to the next thin wall tubing diameter. The thicker tube will be heavier even though it has a smaller OD. So from a practical standpoint it does mean something.


Thanks for the information, I'm going to do some more reading but this is going beyond my meagre capabilities. I don't even fully understand the range of options available at this point.

The one thing this post has really showed me is in fact how little I know about what I thought I knew a fair bit about ... if that makes sense.

To those who have been harping on about buying a mass produced frame ... Just came back from another LBS ... the distributors here simply do not sell frames outside of some high end carbon XC things. The frames they carry are 'warranty' only and not for resale. The advice from the LBS was order overseas if possible or buy a used bike for the frame. Please understand unlike North America or Europe, availability and commercial laws in Australia severely limit our options and thus make prices ridiculous.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

crembz said:


> Thanks for the information, I'm going to do some more reading but this is going beyond my meagre capabilities. I don't even fully understand the range of options available at this point.
> 
> The one thing this post has really showed me is in fact how little I know about what I thought I knew a fair bit about ... if that makes sense.


Your thread here had a lot to unpack.

-The geo thing is multifaceted- builders understand geo with different parameters than the general population so they can build a frame for someone else and know how it will perform. It's like learning a different language.
-Geo is also a moving target. Some values are best unaltered, some are worth compromising on, and others aren't compromises if incorporated correctly. We don't know what's what yet, and components are in an ongoing dialog with frame design.
-Most of the active participants here are hobby builders who each develop their own methods and have differing design objectives. We're not going to agree even when we do.
-Stuff like tubing size... i know of at least one highly regarded veteran pro builder who, IMO, has absolutely no clue about frame stiffness. Nonetheless he's still making desirable frames...
-Nobody wants to make a framebuilding recipe (for _reasons_), so comments are almost always vague.

Lots of good discussion here though. I bet if you sifted through it and designed a frame based on your instincts it would turn out impossibly great. And if it doesn't... well that's how you end up making a bunch of custom frames hahahaha. Build something! There's no bad outcome.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

scottzg said:


> Your thread here had a lot to unpack.
> 
> -The geo thing is multifaceted- builders understand geo with different parameters than the general population so they can build a frame for someone else and know how it will perform. It's like learning a different language.
> -Geo is also a moving target. Some values are best unaltered, some are worth compromising on, and others aren't compromises if incorporated correctly. We don't know what's what yet, and components are in an ongoing dialog with frame design.
> ...


Excellent summation and really appreciate all the learnings along the way. I've decided to go down the steel path vs titanium (just in case the frame rides like a dog I haven't lost too much). Communication with the frame builder is very very slow though so I'll have to be patient. The titanium builder is a ton more responsive but I can't trust my first custom to such a high cost.

Where this would really turn into a rabbit hole is if I had fabrication skills. I can see myself with a shed full of 'imperfect' frames hanging from the ceiling lols


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

crembz said:


> lol
> 
> Non-commital Pinkbike review:
> 
> Super long wheelbase and the rollover of the massive front wheel allow the bike to plough through gnar. Rapid acceleration from the tiny rear wheel let you blast out of corners and manual like a boss. The unconventional handlebar position took some getting used to but after a few rides it just works. All in all this could be the bike for you, equally suited to both pro's and beginners.


yesssss:

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/video-we-went-to-taiwan-and-made-a-bike-from-the-future-the-grim-donut.html


----------



## zweeLLAMA (Jan 3, 2020)

Asking how something that extreme will ride? Sheesh... it'd take me a while to get used to that HA. That's beyond "feels like a DH bike" level. 

Guess I didn't have to wait 2 years for something to have over a 82 degree STA to make it big. I wanna hear comments on whether it can go any steeper, is about as steep as it can get, or is detrimentally too steep.

With a steeper HA, I don't doubt that would've been a legit fast bike. Would commute luxuriously on road and gravel, being practically a limo. Playful and responsive, maybe if you delude yourself enough.


----------



## rruff (Nov 19, 2019)

zweeLLAMA said:


> I wanna hear comments on that, if it can go any steeper or is about as steep as it can get (or in the unlikely case, too steep).


On a 20deg grade it's really a 63deg seat angle, so...


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

So the design is now with a frame builder. Initial discussions underway.

Considering the amount of feedback and input from everyone here I'm thinking of getting decals printed for each of the aliases who made a material contribution stuck on the frame to represent the community effort that went into this 

Anyways this is what has gone to the builder:









With Sag:


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

crembz said:


> So the design is now with a frame builder. Initial discussions underway.


Cool!



zweeLLAMA said:


> I wanna hear comments on whether it can go any steeper, is about as steep as it can get, or is detrimentally too steep.


Sure, why not, i'm bored.

I haven't ridden a bike with the most outlandish possible seat angle. I've built a mtb with a 78* seat angle, though. And my current primary bike, a hardtail, has a 76* seat (unsagged, obviously).

Seat angle is a variable. You can absolutely make a bike with a 90* seat angle that isn't murder. Unicycles have existed for decades. Anyone who thinks seat angles can't exceed [random number here] hasn't probed the limits effectively.

I don't think we're going to see production bikes moving to 80* seat tubes because too many trails don't warrant that sort of geometry compromise. There's still more to be gained by altering front end geometry, a la PVD, which offers less compromise. I'm tall, and i know that hiking trails get increasingly challenging when your wheelbase starts getting too ponderous. Your normal 5'9 dude on normal trails is gonna hit that wheelbase limit before a 80* seat tube is the optimal compromise. (short riders have been riding shitty bikes so long they don't know which way is up)

In the custom/niche market it's tough to predict. There will always be people with a use-case for 5* more than what makes sense for production builders. Sometimes those people can shift the whole industry, which in turn can shift how MTB-specific trails are built. If you've been around long enough you've seen it happen.

So yeah. I can't definitively say that super steep seat angles aren't the future, because it's contingent on a lot of other stuff. I'm pretty confident that they're not the present, though. At least not for the masses. But the mtb community has embraced plenty of stuff that i've thought was dumb, so i'm no oracle. You should commission a custom frame, and be super candid about what it does confusingly well and where it fails to meet standards.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

scottzg said:


> You can absolutely make a bike with a 90* seat angle that isn't murder. Unicycles have existed for decades.


You don't bear any weight on your arms on a unicycle so this probably falls under apples and oranges.



> I don't think we're going to see production bikes moving to 80* seat tubes because too many trails don't warrant that sort of geometry compromise.


This is spot-on. Eventually the Spinal Tap school of design will turn out bikes that are simply too niche.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

dr.welby said:


> You don't bear any weight on your arms on a unicycle so this probably falls under apples and oranges.


With a custom frame you can put the bars wherever you want. Sure, you'd need to put the bars pretty damn close to make a comfy bike on normal terrain... but that's just testament to how steeper seat angles are no panacea.

If we're doing it right we're just choosing the best compromises.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

crembz said:


> So the design is now with a frame builder. Initial discussions underway.
> 
> With Sag:
> 
> View attachment 1305403


Congrats. I really wish that more riders (and hopeful builders) would go through the process that you just did. From where you started to now, you've discovered how little you knew, learned some, and know you have work to do. You own a copy of BikeCad so you can continue this with yourself and friends. I've been doing this for a very long time and there's always another layer to the onion.

I'm sure that this will be the best bike you've ever ridden...even though I know it could have been better. Leaving the standard industry BS behind is hard until you realize how little companies care about making good bikes in favor of selling lots of bikes.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> Congrats. I really wish that more riders (and hopeful builders) would go through the process that you just did. From where you started to now, you've discovered how little you knew, learned some, and know you have work to do. You own a copy of BikeCad so you can continue this with yourself and friends. I've been doing this for a very long time and there's always another layer to the onion.
> 
> I'm sure that this will be the best bike you've ever ridden...even though I know it could have been better. Leaving the standard industry BS behind is hard until you realize how little companies care about making good bikes in favor of selling lots of bikes.


thanks pvd, if it wasn't for you and several others I'd still have some pretty misguided ideas. At this point I realize how much more I need to learn for the next one lol. And yes, without firsthand experience you are at the mercy of the bike industry and online sources to build an image of what's "good".

I'd love to be able to fab this stuff up myself and experiment and learn more but that's just a stretch too far for me realistically. I'm still not really sure what to expect in terms of 'ride' but super excited to find out.

Frame builder is limited to the certain tubes. Closest I could get to the diameters suggested above is:

28.6mm top tube (thicker than suggested)
34.9mm down tube (thinner than suggested)
16mm seat stays (thicker than suggested)

Not sure how that will change the characteristic of the ride ...guess I'll be finding out.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Why can't your builder source proper tubes? That's a pretty shitty spec. Serious garbage.


----------



## seat_boy (May 16, 2006)

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but is the builder Marino out of Peru?


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

seat_boy said:


> Maybe I missed it somewhere, but is the builder Marino out of Peru?


I've not called it out explicitly but yes.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

pvd said:


> Why can't your builder source proper tubes? That's a pretty shitty spec. Serious garbage.


No idea, I'm not sure they would've even asked if I hadn't brought it up.


----------



## VegasSingleSpeed (May 5, 2005)

Accept those limitations at this price-point, or step up and find a new builder and actually pay the market-cost for a custom frame


----------



## dblspeed (Jan 31, 2006)

Hi crembz, I've been through this thread more than once, it's awesome for someone like myself, 165cm\77cm inseam rider trying to fit on a modern bike (currently a medium Mondraker Vantage RR+ and a 2018 S\M Orbea Rallon, both with approx 760mm FC) toying with the idea of getting a custom frame to keep the geo benefits without the fit compromises.... thanks!

I'm not a builder or an expert, but here are my thoughts:

for "us" the right stem is crucial for placing the the bars in the right spot, I have both the Syntace Flatforce 44mm and the FSA slk drop 60mm, they are measured differently, the Syntace measures "reach", FSA measures center to center, Syntace has different negative rise depending on size (reach) so that the drop is constant across the whole range, FSA has a constant negative rise of - 20 degrees for all sizes; the 44mm Syntace has the same reach as the 50mm FSA, but with -30 degrees rise, so it will place your bars a bit lower; 55mm Syntace and 60mm FSA are basicaly the same, (-20 degrees), all others sizes are different; stem stack height affects bar placement, and is the same for both stems, both as low as commercially available afaik; the ebay stem you linked will place your bars a higher than both the Syntace and FSA, depending on how much room you have to place your bars you might find yourself buyng twice... also, that stem is much cheaper on aliexpress; 44mm Syntace is so low it might touch the frame if you don't use spacers, in my case I got away with 3mm (on the Mondraker), still it's put me in a decent position on that bike.

https://issuu.com/fsa-fullspeedahead/docs/fsa-dealer2017/27
https://b2b.dema.bike/virtual/l/05A208_001.jpg
https://www.thebikelane.com/product/syntace-flatforce-stem-297974-1.htm
https://www.sefiles.net/images/library/zoom/syntace-flatforce-stem-297974-11.jpg

If you are using flats, thicker pedals gives you a bit of room to play with saddle height.

For your intended use I would have considered a rigid fork.

Very interested to see the finished frame and how they accomplish the 410mm chainstys AND 29x2.4 tire clearance (in my dreams I'd get that length with clearance for 27.5/2.8 tires)

Bikecad should give non professional buyers a discount on the pro version... 

Cheers


----------



## xy9ine (Feb 2, 2005)

VegasSingleSpeed said:


> Accept those limitations at this price-point, or step up and find a new builder and actually pay the market-cost for a custom frame


i mean @ ~$250 usd for full custom, i'd be willing to accept a few limitations. amazing marino can do this so cheaply.

https://www.marinobike.com/producto/custom-hardtail-mtb-frame/


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

xy9ine said:


> i mean @ ~$250 usd for full custom, i'd be willing to accept a few limitations. amazing marino can do this so cheaply.
> 
> https://www.marinobike.com/producto/custom-hardtail-mtb-frame/


This is the real question in my mind at the moment. Will garbage tube spec ruin the ride of this bike to the point where it makes more sense to buy a commercial frame instead (Nordest Britango TR or Spec fuse).

I checked some local frame builders and that's not something I can even begin to contemplate. Talking 6-8x the cost of this.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

crembz said:


> This is the real question in my mind at the moment. Will garbage tube spec ruin the ride of this bike to the point where it makes more sense to buy a commercial frame instead (Nordest Britango TR or Spec fuse).
> 
> I checked some local frame builders and that's not something I can even begin to contemplate. Talking 6-8x the cost of this.


It's not garbage tube spec, it's spec that pvd doesn't like. It's fine.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

dblspeed said:


> Hi crembz, I've been through this thread more than once, it's awesome for someone like myself, 165cm\77cm inseam rider trying to fit on a modern bike (currently a medium Mondraker Vantage RR+ and a 2018 S\M Orbea Rallon, both with approx 760mm FC) toying with the idea of getting a custom frame to keep the geo benefits without the fit compromises.... thanks!
> 
> I'm not a builder or an expert, but here are my thoughts:
> 
> ...


Hey mate,

With a 760mm FC at your height, does that not stretch you out like crazy unless you have a very steep seat tube? I'm only slightly taller and even a 730mm front centre feels a little stretched to me.

I'm aiming for clearance of 29x2.6" just for versatility. They claim it'll clear 29x3.0 which I very much doubt and has me concerned about what I may end up with.

I do use flats but I'm starting to transition to clips, begrudgingly.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

scottzg said:


> It's not garbage tube spec, it's spec that pvd doesn't like. It's fine.


Lol. Please help me understand, what is the real world difference between what pvd has suggested and these tubes?


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

crembz said:


> Lol. Please help me understand, what is the real world difference between what pvd has suggested and these tubes?


What pvd specced would allow the frame to twist more at the bars, but be more precise under braking. In general it would ride nicer, and it's probably faster on a trail.

Marino's offering is what you'd expect to see from a savvy production builder, and has some advantage if you're jumping and goofing around. It's not excessive, and much too spindly for someone my size.

They're not thaaaat far apart, and you'd have to know what to pay attention to to differentiate them.

IMO. I'd be interested to hear a different interpretation.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Ah got it ... So all up, not the end of the world especially given my relative inexperience.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

crembz said:


> Ah got it ... So all up, not the end of the world especially given my relative inexperience.


Given marino's price point it's not worth a second thought. He's offering rider-specific sized tubing. It's impressive.


----------



## rruff (Nov 19, 2019)

crembz said:


> Ah got it ... So all up, not the end of the world especially given my relative inexperience.


I'll be interested to see how it turns out! I've searched and hear that quality can be a little dodgy, but the frames are very cheap. Did you ask about upgrading to Rey 725? EDIT: I'd also like to know your tubing thicknesses, if he's told you.

I'm curious what other companies you considered? I've done some searching and came up with nothing from China or Taiwan that was custom in steel.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

rruff said:


> I'll be interested to see how it turns out! I've searched and hear that quality can be a little dodgy, but the frames are very cheap. Did you ask about upgrading to Rey 725? EDIT: I'd also like to know your tubing thicknesses, if he's told you.
> 
> I'm curious what other companies you considered? I've done some searching and came up with nothing from China or Taiwan that was custom in steel.


I've heard of a lot of happy customers for Marino and yeah the occasional and somewhat minor complaint about the bosses not being perfectly centered. Haven't come across any complaints about bent or warped headtubes or broken welds yet. Upgrading to 725 costs an extra USD90 which I'm not convinced I'd see the benefit in ... Unless someone has any feedback on that. I'm planning heat treated 4130.

I looked into China and Taiwan, found a couple who do steel but only in large quanities (100+), same with alloy. The rest are all titanium which I seriously considered. But USD1000 is a little much to gamble on my first frame and out of China. Few reports of warped headtubes also and there are no titanium welders available locally if I ever need a repair.


----------



## rruff (Nov 19, 2019)

725 is stronger, but mostly I thought there might be different tubing options. You may want to research whether heat treating is a good idea.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

I don't see much value in using heat treated steel if you're not confident in the construction quality and/or the frame is liable to take some impact damage. Or you're not going to use the thin tubes it makes possible.

It's a perk or marginal gains. The magic in custom happens with the geometry and tuning the flex to the rider/application. Not really with gucci tubes. IMO (and again i'd be interested to hear a differing viewpoint)


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

scottzg said:


> I don't see much value in using heat treated steel if you're not confident in the construction quality and/or the frame is liable to take some impact damage. Or you're not going to use the thin tubes it makes possible.
> 
> It's a perk or marginal gains. The magic in custom happens with the geometry and tuning the flex to the rider/application. Not really with gucci tubes. IMO (and again i'd be interested to hear a differing viewpoint)


Oh cool, see I was under the impression heat treating helped prevent rust which is why I was going to use it. I was also under the impression that 725 and heat treated 4130 were similar just different manufacturers. Heat treatment is an extra cost so if it's unnecessary I'd rather put that cash elsewhere.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

725 is heat-treated cromoly, you just pay for that cool sticker.

Heat treatment increases the strength to weight ratio, so it's worth the money if that's important to you.

If you want the lightest bike possible you're going to have to use the thinnest tubing, and that's best done using heat-treated tubing. Thin wall tubes that haven't been heat-treated are especially prone to denting.

If your goal is strength to dollar ratio, then you can get strength by just using more material. Use a bigger and/or thicker tube and you're done. There are also some theoretical production savings since the material is easier to cut.

But in this case, we're talking about a sticker, so I think it's a clear decision.


----------



## rruff (Nov 19, 2019)

crembz said:


> Oh cool, see I was under the impression heat treating helped prevent rust which is why I was going to use it. I was also under the impression that 725 and heat treated 4130 were similar just different manufacturers.


I'm pretty sure the heat treatment does not offer any rust resistance, unless they do something else in the process. Unless they have different alloy contents as well?

For some reason I assumed they were talking about heat treating *after* welding. Seems like that would be the best time to do it. 725 is heat treated, but surely you'd lose that heat treatment right around the weld due to temperature? I guess that's one reason why the tubes are thicker there.

Unless I was chasing low weight and using a premium builder, I'd lean more towards the simpler tubing with thicker walls. If the heat treated tubes are the same thickness, then it might be worth the $30 just to get better dent resistance.


----------



## dblspeed (Jan 31, 2006)

crembz said:


> Hey mate,
> 
> With a 760mm FC at your height, does that not stretch you out like crazy unless you have a very steep seat tube? I'm only slightly taller and even a 730mm front centre feels a little stretched to me.


Well first of all even though my 2 bikes have the same FC figure they are different animals, the Orbea is a 150/160 full susser with a more traditional cockpit, the Mondraker is a progressive HT with a 140 mm fork and has a longer cockpit.
I use a 60mm FSA stem on the Orbea and the 44mm Syntace on the Mondraker, the Orbea almost feels cramped compared to the Mondraker, which feels more strecthed than the Orbea but it's actually fine and gives me more room to move around when standing pedaling. 
Granted the Mondraker is a borderline fit expermient for my height and it's not perfect (hence the desire for a custome frame) but cockpit length is not a problem and I'm be more concerned with cockpit height.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

rruff said:


> For some reason I assumed they were talking about heat treating *after* welding. Seems like that would be the best time to do it.


Steel bikes are never post-weld heat treated.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

dr.welby said:


> Steel bikes are never post-weld heat treated.


I had an NS that was. Never use absolutes.


----------



## Cord (Dec 10, 2006)

scottzg said:


> Never use absolutes.


 That's a good rule that I nearly always stick to.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

I just didn't want to write something full of conditionals like:

Steel bikes are never* heat treated

* with some rare exceptions**

** where the term*** is vague and likely marketing

*** for steels this could be a normalization**** step

**** normalization doesn't take the heat-affected zone back up to full temper*****

***** this is the opposite of mass market****** aluminum bikes

****** some dude in Peru selling custom frames that cost less than some saddles probably doesn't have access to this level of machinery


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

dr.welby said:


> I just didn't want to write something full of conditionals like:
> 
> Steel bikes are never* heat treated
> 
> ...


That's much better, thank you.

didn't mean to sound like a dick, i thought it was interesting that such a frame existed, and was trying to be funny.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

scottzg said:


> That's much better, thank you.
> 
> didn't mean to sound like a dick, i thought it was interesting that such a frame existed, and was trying to be funny.


No problem, I had a feeling someone was going to dig up an exception and I caught the gag in "Never use absolutes".

I hope the silly footnotes-to-footnotes also came across as an attempt at humor.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Waiting to hear back from the builders but here are the bits that are getting thrown into this build.


----------



## Cord (Dec 10, 2006)

STi ?


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Cord said:


> STi ?


'99 gc8 wrx


----------



## Cord (Dec 10, 2006)

crembz said:


> '99 gc8 wrx


Cool, I used to have a 99 RB5. Loved it!!!


----------



## Drew Diller (Jan 4, 2010)

crembz said:


> '99 gc8 wrx


*heavy breathing*


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Cord said:


> Cool, I used to have a 99 RB5. Loved it!!!


They are a blast when they're working lol.

This is another long term wip. Picked it up 2 years ago for next to nothing. Not quite happy with it yet but getting there. Still need to replace rear door windows, rear glass, full respray, audio system, spare wheel retainer and then I'll start on the motor and drivetrain upgrades.


----------



## Cord (Dec 10, 2006)

crembz said:


> They are a blast when they're working lol.
> 
> This is another long term wip. Picked it up 2 years ago for next to nothing. Not quite happy with it yet but getting there. Still need to replace rear door windows, rear glass, full respray, audio system, spare wheel retainer and then I'll start on the motor and drivetrain upgrades.


Without dragging this to far off topic, I did a bit of work on mine. It was a 2.2, 6 speed, diffs, brakes etc,,,, 500bhp. I bloomin' loved it.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Cord said:


> Without dragging this to far off topic, I did a bit of work on mine. It was a 2.2, 6 speed, diffs, brakes etc,,,, 500bhp. I bloomin' loved it.


Yeah you really need to stop, you're inspiring me to do silly things now ?


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Haven't heard from the builder for a week and a half now which is slower than I had imagined. Being an impatient fellow, I'm looking around at other options 😕


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Just finalizing a few details now, I did have a question. Given the somewhat slack geometry, would such a frame handle be able to drop 10 a 100mm fork without too many issues, or will this throw the geo completely out?


----------



## rruff (Nov 19, 2019)

crembz said:


> I'm looking around at other options 😕


Which other options are on your radar? I'd suggest you keep bugging them...


----------



## calstar (Mar 26, 2013)

crembz said:


> *Haven't heard from the builder* for a week and a half now which is slower than I had imagined. Being an impatient fellow, I'm looking around at other options 


Not a good sign, how about dealing with him if something isn't right with the finished product, will he respond then? Looking for different options seems to be the right move.


----------



## *OneSpeed* (Oct 18, 2013)

calstar said:


> Not a good sign, how about dealing with him if something isn't right with the finished product, will he respond then? Looking for different options seems to be the right move.


He's on a completely different continent, really what kind of post sale support are you expecting?

For the price he charges, consider yourself "on your own". If I were him I'd probably just put that right on the website.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

*OneSpeed* said:


> He's on a completely different continent, really what kind of post sale support are you expecting?
> 
> For the price he charges, consider yourself "on your own". If I were him I'd probably just put that right on the website.


I've heard generally very good experiences even with post sale issues from them. I'm not sure how many ppl they have on staff but I'm guessing they're pretty busy given what they charge.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

rruff said:


> Which other options are on your radar? I'd suggest you keep bugging them...


I was looking into custom titanium out of China (Waltly) or something off the shelf like a Nordest Britango or Kona Honzo. The builder contacted me the day before last, I'm going to try persevere and be patient lol.


----------



## rruff (Nov 19, 2019)

crembz said:


> I've heard generally very good experiences even with post sale issues from them.


I think the issue is it costs so much for round trip shipping that it would need to be a major failure before it would be worth it.



crembz said:


> I was looking into custom titanium out of China (Waltly).


I looked into them also. Saw several reports of spotty QC but generally favorable. Ti is difficult to weld properly, and it may take awhile for cracks to show up. Anyway you are looking at ~$1,000 shipped in that case... but I really like Ti.


----------



## crembz (Feb 25, 2019)

Yeah Ti is tempting but USD950.

Ok so the design came up with was so similar to the Nordest Britango TR that I just ended up ordering that in white/orange. Looking forward to setting it up. it will replace me gravel bike.

I'm looking to go slacker/longer with the custom frame as originally suggested with more aggressive trail use in mind. The rear is adjustable from 410-425mm:









Onto colors, I originally intended raw with a clear coat, however the builder has suggested it provides no protection from rust. That confuses me because I would have thought any decent clear powdercoat or 2k urethane would work.


----------

