Furry's fat and long bikes

I'm just repeating marketing BS I've read regarding such curved stays on a Ti bike. Kinda makes sense but I've no idea of the real practical effect on ride comfort.

I do. But my ti road bike is very stiff as far as ti is concerned, so not sure if they have a discernible benefit on ride comfort. The bike is very comfy though. And stiff.

Maybe it's an aesthetic thing. Frame builders do it because the metal allows it without losing any rigidity.

I'm sure either Tester or DJ will come along and enlighten us as to why...

I thought it was to lengthen the seatstays, and also allow them to flex more. All while keeping the chainstays short. I think seatstays are more likely to flex in a outward direction from the wheel though. So maybe its more aesthetic.

This stuff is so fecking Bike Radar though. Drives me nuts how they can decribe a frame as compliant, pointing at skinny seatstays, one week. Then describe a beefy stayed bike as compliant the next. Without smelling at least a slight wiff of BS in their descriptions.

/Rant

Rob English has his say about skinny stays and the myth of vertical compliance at 2m 37s here...
NAHBS 2012 - English Cycles 18.5 lb SS 29er - YouTube

I'm really liking the idea of gently curving seatstays now. Bit like these.

They would in theory add some comfortable flex.

"vertical compliance"

I'm just repeating marketing BS I've read regarding such curved stays on a Ti bike.

not sure if they have a discernible benefit on ride comfort.

Maybe it's an aesthetic thing. Frame builders do it because the metal allows it without losing any rigidity.

This stuff is so fecking Bike Radar though.

Rob English has his say about skinny stays and the myth of vertical compliance.

What Rob says makes sense to me. Don't really have a clue though. I just thought they looked nice ;-)

My latest monstrosity to spam Smallfurry's thread with. ( I daren't put any more in the 29er thread )

Version no 14. Bear in mind that for 6' 7" I'm more long body than long leg.

I think with a frame that tall I'd be wanting to keep things as stiff as possible, then for compliance I'd be building it to allow the seatpost to be as close to full extension as possible, and use a ti post to use the flex there to add some comfort..

I guess thats 220mm of post showing there. Could move the top tube down 5mm at the headtube, and 10mm at the seat tube. You'd get a smaller triangle, and some more post showing.

Otherwise it looks really nice.

Some folk on the Triton thread have gone for reinforcing struts, and/or gussets. Looking at that I dont think you'd need to ugly the bike up. As long as you use the oversized headtube.

Thanks chaps. That model shows a slightly ovalized 44m dt & straight 32mm tt. I have seen Dmitry suggest a 46mm dt & 35mm tt to one large fella over on mtbr who was disappointed at his frames flexiness. So it appears I have scope to go with bigger tubes. Triton do tube ovalizing too. Am I right in thinking this can help stiffen things up? ( if done correctly of course )

I really don't want this!

Though Dmitry took the frame back & added some strengthening gussets on the frame. It's still far from what I see as my "dream bike" :-/

I'll try making the triangle a bit smaller. I'll check how much seatpost i'm comfortable having extended. I'm possibly overly concerned after having seen a few Lynskeys crack at the seat tube weld after people have run too much post out of the frame.

Speaking of seatposts, I have no intention of running a dropper & have always been fine with a 27.2 post. Would that help comfort wise, compared to a larger diameter?

I should really start a thread on this. I suppose I'm not 100% certain on the ability to finance the project yet & don't want to look like a right berk :-(

I should really start a thread on this. I suppose I'm not 100% certain on the ability to finance the project yet & don't want to look like a right berk :-(

Doesnt bother me. Its not like I'm filling the thread with own updates ;)

I'm not sure ovalising stiffens anything as such. Its more of a case of allowing a DT larger than both HT and BB shell. Yet still being able to wield it.

I also think that tube length is as important a consideration, as rider weight. I may not be much lighter than you. But nearly all my tubes are a decent percentage shorter.

In terms of my project. I havent heard much for a while. I did recieve a new seatpost clamp, and chainstay protector though. So its still moving.

Rob English has his say about skinny stays and the myth of vertical compliance at 2m 37s here...
NAHBS 2012 - English Cycles 18.5 lb SS 29er - YouTube

I cringe everytime I see that. That guy doing the interview has absolutely no idea about anything Rob is talking about. I'm not sure whether to respect Rob more for that (admittedly, fucking lovely) bike, or his ability to put up with absolute idiots for more than 5 minutes.

I'm not sure ovalising stiffens anything as such. Its more of a case of allowing a DT larger than both HT and BB shell. Yet still being able to wield it.

Ah, that makes sense.

his ability to put up with absolute idiots for more than 5 minutes.

Is he on this forum then ;-)

I cringe everytime I see that. That guy doing the interview has absolutely no idea about anything Rob is talking about. I'm not sure whether to respect Rob more for that (admittedly, fucking lovely) bike, or his ability to put up with absolute idiots for more than 5 minutes.

I think exactly the same! :]
I can't believe he asked which part of the seatpost moves up and down and he actually had to say 'The silver part'. :]

This is another look that I really want to avoid. 185mm 1 1/8" HT

Nice colour though.

Version 14 now updated to version 15.

14.

15.

TT lowered 5mm at HT & 15mm at ST. ChainSeatstays lowered accordingly. Also brough back the ETT by a touch, still giving me 20mm more reach than the Ogre. With a 10mm shorter stem ( 80mm rather than 90mm ) that should work out nicely.

Well.... It looks better. That's about all I could tell you really :-/

Any more drawings will go into a new thread.

*when I'm feeling brave.

This is another look that I really want to avoid. 185mm 1 1/8" HT.

What pisses me off is all that wasted availible travel. I've struggled like mad to squeeze 110mm travel out of a 590mm stack. I couldnt go any higher with stack as my BB is lowered for stability, and I really want 0 bar drop.

TT lowered 5mm at HT & 15mm at ST. Chainstays lowered accordingly. Also brough back the ETT by a touch, still giving me 20mm more reach than the Ogre. With a 10mm shorter stem ( 80mm rather than 90mm ) that should work out nicely.

For such a big bike it looks amazingly compact. I'm sure the 29" inherently help with this. But I still think the main triangle is looking, well like a triangle. I think its when it becomes a main square that the bike looks gate like.

The wheel size most definitely helps. Hopefully the 49.6 HT will help with the overall proportions too, as well as the strength & rigidity of the frame.

Why not leave the chainstays at the same height and have more seatpost exposed to gain flex, without reducing ground clearance?

Nevermind...I'm guessing you meant seat stays as I notice the BB height hasn't changed.

I was struggling visualize what you meant then :-) I only lowered the BB 2mm from the Ogre's.

"Chainstays lowered accordingly"

That is the source of the confusion. You meant seatstays right? :]

Yeah... :-(

*edit time