# PVD Mercury.



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

The new standard.

https://www.peterverdone.com/?p=364


----------



## Jamenstall (May 18, 2004)

welcome back PVD


----------



## Blaster1200 (Feb 20, 2004)

Aesthetics are...well...there are lots of lines and ridges...


----------



## mwb (Dec 4, 2007)

Blaster1200 said:


> Aesthetics are...well...there are lots of lines and ridges...


+1

According to the other thread I thought the rings were to aid in the headset transition. Make it more visually pleasing. Not what I was expecting.

Good looking bike though....


----------



## Cracked Headtube (Apr 16, 2006)

Love that BB.


----------



## Clockwork Bikes (Jun 17, 2006)

Lots of cool stuff going on. What did you do to form the right chainstay?

-Joel


----------



## rustola (Jan 15, 2008)

nice work.

how bout the print?


----------



## Thor29 (May 12, 2005)

Nice bike. But this statement on the website leaves me scratching my head: "this bike is designed specifically to completely dominate Marin California singletrack".

What singletrack? Tamarancho and China Camp? That's pretty much it unless you are riding illegally. Tamarancho is okay, but you could dominate that one trail with a lot less fork travel and just one gear.


----------



## rustola (Jan 15, 2008)

Thor29 said:


> unless you are riding illegally


bingo.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

Clockwork Bikes said:


> Lots of cool stuff going on. What did you do to form the right chainstay?
> 
> -Joel


Looks like an interrupted tube with a bent piece of flat stock staggering them, no? It's a _little_ obscured beneath the paint, but that's what I'm getting out of it.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Thor29 said:


> Tamarancho and China Camp?


Those are great places for beginners and novice riders to start the learning process, but the experienced riders know where the big game is played. We are probably just swimming in two very different pools.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Print should be up this weekend. Sorry to be so slack. I've been distracted with a bunch of motorcycle projects.


----------



## blackgt (May 27, 2010)

Looks interesting, thanks for sharing.

I do have one question, your spec sheet says the rear dropouts are Paragon low mount dics, yet they don't look like those.

Jeremy


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

My bad on the specs. I was a bit sloppy documenting bike. I fixed it now and the tubes will make much more sence although I still have to find out where I wrote down the exact top and down tubes.

https://www.pvdwiki.com/index.php?title=2011_PVD_Mercury_MTB#Tubes

On another note, I got the bike out on a quality test ride yesterday. The stem needs to come down just a little bit but otherwise the bike rides amazing. The Shimano 2x10 is so solid and works so well. The front shifter/front derailure are dialed. The rear is smooth like glass. The new XTR trail pedal is the only choice now (asside from DX for DH). Like having a platform under your clip, but nothing at all more than is needed. Super cool.

The rest of the parts, Saint brakes, VAN140QR15, EC90, etc are already established as killer.

The bike was already slack at 69.25 with a 655 front center. Slacking it more with 0.5 degrees in the Angleset was a bit much for general trail riding, but would be sweet for downieville runs or super d race. The Angleset is interesting, but will probably be replaced after some testing. The head angle of this bike is already in the range.










The new 2x systems make me laugh. I was running my version of 2x9 at the 2007 Sea Otter. I was stoked when one of the engineers from Shimano asked me if he could take a few pictures of it. I figured that they were working on something.

Here's a post of mine from winter of 2006/2007 during development:
https://www.pvdwiki.com/index.php?title=2x9_ala_PVD


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

Peter - nice bike, nice design.

A few questions - How did you make the tapered head tube? Turned down from a big thick tube?

I see you are not running a tapered fork, presumably to use the AngleSet. If AngleSet was the primary design criteria, why didnt you build the frame with OnePointFive, which would have been easier to make the HT in steel than the tapered HT? Or was the frame already designed for tapered, and then AngleSet came out, and it was an obvious addition?

Also, on your mitering if the DT, there is no way to really accurately get the taper of the HT figured in, so did you then just do the final fitting to the tapered HT by hand file?

Overall, its really nice, and really clean, like how I romanticize steel frames in my mind.....


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

The down tube was mitered cylindrically then hand filed at the taper. It was fairly simple to get a great fit. Just a few minutes with a file like any other hand miter. No worries.

The head tube design was made prior to the ZS44 1.5" release. I needed a tapered design since that's all we'll see from now on for single crown. I would have done the top Integrated 1.125" but I hadn't figured out a design that I trusted so I went with ZS44 to make the whole tube from one peice of thick 4130. I really wasn't too happy about this design thinking it was too crude and below myu personal standards so the bike kinda around for 2 months needing just a few braze on's. When I realized that I could put an Cane Creek Angleset in, the bike seemed much cooler and I got stoked. It's just kinda neat for right now.

http://www.peterverdone.com/?p=327

My next few bicycles will feature head tubes with integrated 1.125" top and ZS44 1.5" lower headset. A two peice design using a main tube diameter of 1.500". This will look much leaner and more elegant than what I've got here. I've got it all designed and hoped to do a new version of my urban road bike that will be more fun to ride. Steel forks on road bikes are just donkey and I'd love to have nice tapered carbon fork on the next bike.


----------



## qbert2000 (Jul 30, 2008)

i dont get the high rise stem. you are always gumming off about custom blah blah blah you're the best, but you build a bike specifically for yourself and you need a 10? degree stem? to make it fit. wtf?


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

qbert2000 said:


> i dont get it....


You are 100% correct. You don't get it. You don't have any idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Smokebikes (Feb 2, 2008)

Welcome back PVD, been a while...........nice concept, looks good.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

chequamagon said:


> If AngleSet was the primary design criteria, why didnt you build the frame with OnePointFive, which would have been easier to make the HT in steel than the tapered HT? Or was the frame already designed for tapered, and then AngleSet came out, and it was an obvious addition?


Getting back to this. A straight OnePointFive tube on a steel bike is wildly heavy and is quite ugly. The scale of the top and down tubes meeting the enormous head tube just looks horrible and crude. The only way to get the weight down and have the scale proper is to reduce the outside diameter to the absolute minimum possible. That is not the case with this design, but it's better than nothing. The next revision with the IS/44 is going to be right. I actually cant wait to make it.

Also, I had a perfectly good VAN140QR15 with a straight steerer on hand. It seemed like a waste to buy a new fork just to have it tapered. I'll probably spring for a 2012 model fork with a carbon steerer/crown for that upgrade. That's next september.


----------



## j-ro (Feb 21, 2009)

I can't even bring myself to lay out an underhanded compliment. 
I'ts just a good looking bike. Period.
Thanks for putting it out there.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

hahaha I've met you!

Sharp looking bike. :thumbsup:


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

qbert2000 said:


> wtf?


I guess that I missed class the day you you learned all about putting a bike together. Take a look at this garbage you put together. 30mm spacer stack, a 90 degree stem, and a high rise handlebar. Are you kidding? Seriously? You do lame work like this and you get all worked up when you see me doing it right? Keep your head in the sand boy. It's safe there.










ps. Man up and put a big ring on that bike. You can't ride slow forever.


----------



## qbert2000 (Jul 30, 2008)

pvd said:


> I guess that I missed class the day you you learned all about putting a bike together. Take a look at this garbage you put together. 30mm spacer stack, a 90 degree stem, and a high rise handlebar. Are you kidding? Seriously? You do lame work like this and you get all worked up when you see me doing it right? Keep your head in the sand boy. It's safe there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if you notice i never put a retarded claim like "the new standard" in any post i've made. why don't you copy another e13 chainguide and tout is as the latest greatest pvd product again.  stay as a hero on the internet. it's safe there d00$h

btw its a 50mm stem and i guess you ran that retarded high rise stem so you could run that flat bar you had lying around and have no spacers.awesome custom work and definitely a new standard


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

qbert2000 said:


> btw its a 50mm stem and i guess you ran that retarded high rise stem so you could run that flat bar you had lying around and have no spacers.


Just lost. You don't even know what you don't know.


----------



## qbert2000 (Jul 30, 2008)

pvd said:


> Just lost. You don't even know what you don't know.


okay whatever. keep reverse engineering stuff and touting it the latest and greatest. some day you'll get some credit from someone other than yourself really, you will


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

*A quick explanation*

In the interest of getting everyone back on topic, I *believe* PVD's reason for using a riser stem/flat bar was to minimize the amount of material and weight needed to put the grips/controls in the positions he wanted them.

Consider 2 setups with identical grip positions:
-Flat bar, riser stem, no spacers. You've got a shorter steerer tube, no spacers, and a flat (inherently stronger and lighter) bar. 
-Riser bar, spacers, flat/negative stem. You're following a crooked/zigzag path from the steerer tube to the grips. The spacers go up, the stem goes down, then the bars go back up again.

Does it matter very much? Probably not, we're only talking about 20 or 30g of material at most. But PVD is, technically, completely right - the riser stem/flat bar combo is a stronger/lighter way to accomplish the same task. One could probably also make a stiffness argument for his solution, though my guess is that the differences would be so minimal as to be undetectable.

People think riser bars look cool, and that riser stems look dumb. I have never understood this, myself, but that's the prevailing fashion. That doesn't mean it's the smartest way to do it.

-Walt



qbert2000 said:


> if you notice i never put a retarded claim like "the new standard" in any post i've made. why don't you copy another e13 chainguide and tout is as the latest greatest pvd product again.  stay as a hero on the internet. it's safe there d00$h
> 
> btw its a 50mm stem and i guess you ran that retarded high rise stem so you could run that flat bar you had lying around and have no spacers.awesome custom work and definitely a new standard


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Walt said:


> In the interest of getting everyone back on topic, I *believe* PVD's reason for using a riser stem/flat bar was to minimize the amount of material and weight needed to put the grips/controls in the positions he wanted them.
> 
> Consider 2 setups with identical grip positions:
> -Flat bar, riser stem, no spacers. You've got a shorter steerer tube, no spacers, and a flat (inherently stronger and lighter) bar.
> ...


...and i thought it was so you didn't have a big old steer tube hanging out there to smash your dong on.


----------



## benwitt11 (May 1, 2005)

Seriously nice looking bike. All those little details really add to the whole aesthetic and performace.


----------



## nuck_chorris (Jun 6, 2008)

is that a BOA stem?


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

Why don't you build your frames more slack? I've been curious about the newer slack hardtails that are coming out. I've been told hardtails don't need the slack HA, is this true? Because 67 feels so good on my FS.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Hardtails and FS bikes are different animals. Also, the terrain where they excel are quite different. In Marin, the hardtail is the king of the mountain. It fits the trails just right.

I've tried to push the angle out as far as I can and for around here, 69.25 is about as far as I can get without the steering feeling completely lame on tight trail and having a wandering front end on steeper climbs.(trying the angleset showed that as true) These are trail bikes so they do have to perform going up as well as going down. Also, if the front center gets too great, the bike becomes clumsy in traversing roots and rock sections.


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

I ride in Marin as well, and my 67 HA bike climbs effortlessly, is there something about the frame not having rear suspension that gives the bike a different feel head tube angle wise? If anything it seems like it would steepen the HA more since theres no rear suspension to sag and level things out. 69.5 on a FS trailbike is freakin sketchy.


----------



## Blaster1200 (Feb 20, 2004)

Yody said:


> Why don't you build your frames more slack? I've been curious about the newer slack hardtails that are coming out. I've been told hardtails don't need the slack HA, is this true? Because 67 feels so good on my FS.


Note that although it's a 140 mm travel fork, the drawing is based off of the fork being at 100 mm. I'm assuming that's the sagged position. Unsagged at 140 mm would put the head angle much slacker.


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

That would make much more sense, good call


----------



## qbert2000 (Jul 30, 2008)

you call that doing it right?? lol. yeah 100mm stem. layback post. great job. everyone could learn a lot


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

qbert2000 said:


> you call that doing it right?? lol. yeah 100mm stem. layback post. great job. everyone could learn a lot


+1 probably needed a bigger frame. Still, nice bike, just needs a double and a bigger middle ring. Its kinda throwing stones in a glass house telling people to man up and use a big ring when you're still sporting a death-to-leg big ring and a 32T middle ring. Anyway PVD looks like he's building some pretty nice stuff and is pretty sharp. I don't think I would be talking crap to him if all I had done is built up an aftermarket hardtail.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

qbert2000 said:


> you call that doing it right?? lol. yeah 100mm stem. layback post. great job. everyone could learn a lot:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
> Since everyone's legs are proportioned differently there is nothing wrong with using a setback seatpost based on personal fit. Sometimes it's necessary to effectively slack the seat angle, esp on production bikes that have the same seat angle for all frame sizes. If you notice his custom frame was designed around a zero offset post.
> 
> As for stem length, that's personal preference too. Some areas don't have the super steeps that make a super short stem feel good, some people like the climbing feel with more weight on the front wheel, some people prefer a shorter wheelbase, and so on.
> ...


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

Another Comment on the straight bar deal is that they don't have any sweep, which means worse cornering as it won't feel as natural to get your elbows outwards. To me flat bars are for old school XC riders. I'd rather have maybe just a few small spacers, and either a riser bar or a very small riser bar, something with some backsweep to it. I agree though the picture of that On-One looks funny with all those spacers. Nothing wrong with layback posts at all, in fact I prefer them.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

Yody said:


> Another Comment on the straight bar deal is that they don't have any sweep, which means worse cornering as it won't feel as natural to get your elbows outwards. To me flat bars are for old school XC riders.


The Truvativ flat bar in that SC picture has 10degs sweep, which is a degree more than similar riser bars from Truvativ. The Chromag flat bar on pvd's custom has 11degs sweep, which is also more than any of that company's risers

Not that flat vs rise is related to sweep, but times have changed and flat bars aren't limited to being straight and narrow anymore. There are a lot of good options in 28-31" width and 8-11deg sweep range now, as well as wide flat bars in the 15-17deg sweep range


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

qbert2000 said:


> you call that doing it right?? lol. yeah 100mm stem. layback post. great job. everyone could learn a lot


I'm so glad you brought this bike up. I think talking about it will ensure that everyone can see what a tool you are.

Recent, I became a part owner of a bike shop. I was in the mood to try a bike that I didn't make on trails. I shopped a few bikes and hands in extreme depth, but the butcher/nomads ended up being the choice for many interesting reasons. I chose the butcher to keep the cost down since I don't ride FS often unless I'm downhill.

Prior to ordering the frame, I loaded all the geometry data into BikeCad along with my trailbike preferred fit. The medium as the more than obvious choice.

As most experienced builders know, long rear wheel travel bikes tend to have quite steep seat tubes to give the wheel room to bottom. This necessitates a setback post to produce correct saddle setback for efficient peddling and to keep too much weight from being placed over the front wheel.

Given the massive front center on this type of bike, there is plenty of room for a stem that makes for a comfortable and relaxed peddling position while still allowing high speed entry into even the most obscene trail drops.

I've gone as far as testing this setup on the more aggressive trails in Pacific. I does fine there but I do have another bar and stem setup that I use to put me in a position closer to what I run on my DH bike.

So. What was it that was done wrong here?


----------



## Yody (Jan 21, 2008)

I didn't even bother to look, learn something new all the time. That's good you can get the sweep. I guess I just use shorter stems exclusively and always need some kind of rise to my bar since you can't get rise out of a short stem, well not much at least. Short stem is not nearly just about riding steeps, its about much more.


----------



## Thor29 (May 12, 2005)

I still want to know which trails this thing is designed for.

I promise I won't actually ride there since I can't afford any fines and I don't like getting into confrontations with angry old self-entitled rich ex-hippies. C'mon, spill the beans.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

boomn said:


> The Truvativ flat bar in that SC picture has 10degs sweep, which is a degree more than similar riser bars from Truvativ. The Chromag flat bar on pvd's custom has 11degs sweep, which is also more than any of that company's risers


A lot of riser bars have a backsweep and an upsweep, using the riser portion as reference for the up direction.

The wide flat bars have no reference for "up", so they combine the up and back, and when you do the math it adds a degree or two to the backsweep.

For example, when I designed the Titec Flattracker, we matched it to the 9 degree backsweep and 5 degree upsweep of the Helbent riser, which added together to 11 degrees of total sweep.

I can't say this is what everyone does these days with their bar designs, but that was our thinking.


----------



## boomn (Jul 6, 2007)

dr.welby said:


> A lot of riser bars have a backsweep and an upsweep, using the riser portion as reference for the up direction.
> 
> The wide flat bars have no reference for "up", so they combine the up and back, and when you do the math it adds a degree or two to the backsweep.
> 
> ...


interesting. Thanks for the insight


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

Thor29 said:


> I still want to know which trails this thing is designed for.


Sent PM.


----------



## Francis Buxton (Apr 2, 2004)

scottzg said:


> ...and i thought it was so you didn't have a big old steer tube hanging out there to smash your dong on.


Post of the year, right there. True and funny, all in one.


----------



## Schmitty (Sep 7, 2008)

As for flats vs risers.. first and foremost..... who cares.

For discussions sake, 'back in the day' we liked risers exactly b/c they had more material from the center of the stem to the end of the bar for a given bar length. We 'tuned' our ride feel with different rises and material... Ti... to get the ride we wanted, often with rigid forks. A nice byproduct was a more upright position, this coming on the heels of the long ass stem and short bar era. Delusional? Possibly.. but the memories are good.. argue with them if you want. There was even a blurb in one of the mags about 'guys putting riseres, short stems, and long travel forks on hardtails' like it was some new cutting edge thing. Wide flats with good sweep were rare, headtubes were generally short, wheels were small. How far we've come.

Risers can also allow more tapered area making for a stronger bar... it doesn't have to taper down as quick for fitting levers.

I'm all for function trumping form.... to a point.. I personally like longer headtubes, stems in the 90-115 range, at least 5mm of spacers, but no more than 10, and a stem close to 90 so it can be flipped for different bars, riders, etc. Oh... and risers! Looks proper.


-Schmitty-


----------



## tamen00 (Mar 10, 2004)

Lots of cool stuff going on with this bike - well done!! Very nice frame but not sure about "The new Standard"....

I know the 10 degree rise stem and flat bar are technically right... but to me it just looks funky - along with the 400 mm of seatpost sticking out. Makes it look like compensating for a too small of frame (I know that is not the case with this bike, designed that way on purpose)


----------



## scooter916 (Jan 2, 2006)

I really like the valve caps


----------



## vulture (Jan 13, 2004)

*sort of unremarkable*

That can be taken as a compliment. It looks like it does its job and I dig the numbers for where you are riding it. I will be stoked to see a new tapered steerer fork in that thing in the fall, as it seems the current fork was a compromise to your original design goals. I must say I am not stoked about a seat post that is longer than the seat tube, but since it is your bike, you know how heavy your ass is on the saddle. Also a good poaching bike might be better off tan or brown or green for stealth. Whats next?


----------



## discodave (Jan 12, 2004)

Pretty damn cool! Lots of nice touches especially the BB shell. PVD dragging steel hardtails out of the stone ages!


----------



## JaquesN (Sep 14, 2009)

Hey PVD - thanks for sharing so much information. Looks like a nice ride.

I'm checking out the frame dimensions and wondering, how much sag do you expect in that shock, and where does that tend to put the BB height?

Thanks again,
J


----------



## buildyourown (Dec 1, 2004)

Nice work Peter.
I just bought a new full Carbon Giant. (sacrilege, I know) Tapered 1.125-1.25 headset, 86mm BB, etc. 
I just kept thinking, this is cool stuff, how can we put all these things into a steel bike.
I appreciate the effort.


----------



## pvd (Jan 4, 2006)

JaquesN said:


> I'm checking out the frame dimensions and wondering, how much sag do you expect in that shock, and where does that tend to put the BB height?


The bike is drawn with a 140mm fork sagged 30%.


----------



## jay_ntwr (Feb 15, 2008)

Thanks for sharing, Peter. Good to see you back on the forum.


----------

