New concept, new frame...

[Evil_Lincoln]

Yes, it's cool that somebody out there can make their own frames.  When I look at this one, I think it's cool looking but the very first thing that crossed my mind was how many people would be posting pics of it in the "broken parts" thread...

[NOpurpoSE]

Very interesting "outside the box" design. It looks rather cool as well.

But as others have already said, I fail to see the benefit of it other than looks, and I personally would not want to pay more for a frame with a chain tunnel, than a frame without it.

Any idea what range of sprocket sizes you can run on this?

Other than that, I say good job. I wish I had the means to build my own frames.

Keith

[EZChris]

I think the idea is silly.

But what I love here, is the whole "yeah, why the hell not?" attitude.

If you can, why ever not. It's a interesting concept and seems for the prototype to be well excecuted.

I like a good enginering challenge, well done to you.

Yeh it may not be usefull, helpful, or beneficial to flat in anyway but if people had that attitude towards things we wouldnt of ever bothered building a 763mph rocket jet car or a house constructed out of 3.3million bits of lego.

WHEN IN ROME, etc.

[Paradoxium]

It makes perfect sense. The centre of gravity is in the hub centre, not only of the diameter, but across ways as well. When on one wheel, the centre of the axle is your balance point. The closer you are to it, the easier it is. This is the exact reason most forks got narrower.

As for design, major props for going through with it. I can see it can benefit not only balance points, but give extra arm clearance too as a bonus. So many times crank spindles seem almost long enough.

Due to its open design, it will no doubt flex more or even crack.
To compensate, it would be necessary to increase the thickness of all materials in that immediate vicinity, particularly the actual tunnel.  Frames are light enough.

While I have no doubts you have already tested and retested this prototype, there will be bigger, heavier riders with more aggresive styles that will ride the end result should it go into production, and thats why thicker materials should be used even if the prototype survives.

Please announce gearing limitations. For example 11/23.

Congrats on thinking of this, and having the guts to go through with it.       Critics will be in abundance.  

[TGK]

There is a very specific point to having do have width concerns not only on frames, but on forks also. 

I had this talk with a rider in Ohio about this last week.  We both have custom odyssey forks now,(his the freestyle ,and mine being the director forks) and have had major yet very productive results in our riding by the means of having to deal with foot wedge tricks in relation to being able to control the wheel in a more stable manner. 

So with all that said, I hope a lot more companies look into this future, and consider this just as important as any functional design should be. 


Hope this helps. 

[fablus]

I like the straight tubing in the rear triangles.  Keep those fresh ideas flowing! props PiR.

[Theory]

I enjoy this concept.

I believe that the drop outs and corresponding tunnel can and should be reinforced without losing any visual appeal, but that's what prototypes and new iterations are for!

I would extend some reinforcement back on the drop out so that the chain is more protected and so when I'm holding the back pegs I don't end up touching a greasy chain.

I like the idea of a narrower rear end. It fits the functional trend of getting closer to the balance point (smaller diameter pegs, narrow forks).

I like the welded seat stays & chain stays. It reminds me of a custom automotive look. Although it does provide 4 more points of failure.

I like the incorporated seat post clamp below the TT. I have this on my Eastern Tramp and It gives it a really clean look as well as being functional (easily replaced nut/bolt system).

I agree with TJ that the rear end really doesn't need to be shorter than 13"...

[Pralex]

Making the rear triangle more narrow won't really bring your foot/feet closer to the centre of of the hub (aka balance), as you'll still be restricted by the width of the hub forcing you to keep the dropouts a certain distance apart.

Interesting concept, but I agree with others that I can not find/understand the overall benefits.

[Theory]

Making the rear triangle more narrow won't really bring your foot/feet closer to the centre of of the hub (aka balance), as you'll still be restricted by the width of the hub forcing you to keep the dropouts a certain distance apart.

Interesting concept, but I agree with others that I can not find/understand the overall benefits.

True, we are restricted by the width of the hub.

That being said my current frame has seat stays and chain stays welded on the outside of the drop out. All other things being equal, if my frame had this drop out design my feet could move closer to the center of the hub by half an inch. 

This may also be a benefit for pivoting tricks. Again all things being equal, I would have an extra half inch of clearance for my feet to pivot.

[rawchild]

Looks really cool.  Like the design.
  How long has it been in testing?  Any problems yet?

[Pat]

there'd obviously be a tire limitation too...

[Jason]

I enjoy this concept.

I believe that the drop outs and corresponding tunnel can and should be reinforced without losing any visual appeal, but that's what prototypes and new iterations are for!

I would extend some reinforcement back on the drop out so that the chain is more protected and so when I'm holding the back pegs I don't end up touching a greasy chain.

I like the idea of a narrower rear end. It fits the functional trend of getting closer to the balance point (smaller diameter pegs, narrow forks).

I like the welded seat stays & chain stays. It reminds me of a custom automotive look. Although it does provide 4 more points of failure.

I like the incorporated seat post clamp below the TT. I have this on my Eastern Tramp and It gives it a really clean look as well as being functional (easily replaced nut/bolt system).

I agree with TJ that the rear end really doesn't need to be shorter than 13"...

A good weld is 10 times stronger than the material that it is bonding together.  I think that is is a good idea to weld them as opposed to bend the tubing.  Overall I like the look of the frame itself, minus those ugly dropouts. But I would never buy one because I agree with TJ as well, a 13" dropout would be nice on alot of these frames that we ride.  I don't like having to push my wheel back so far on the dropout just to keep it from getting all squirly on me.

[Jason Rideout]

i really like this design , closer the the center of gravity . the short frame look cool. the only sugestions i have are , thicker stronger drop out and for the chain tunnel use thicker tubing in the shape of a rectangle so you can have a larger gear ratio.

[g-man]

looks like another circus frame and I dont mean from twenty bikes. I'm not a fan of gimiky stuff or the wheels almost rubbing on one another, and those stupid looking short seat tubes with long posts

To each there own, I prefer a longer wheel base and normal length seat tubes

Are you sure this this wasn't built for 16" wheels?

[Burd]

I would suggest that this frame is going to constantly be cracking right between the top part of that hanging bottom bracket and the downtube.  KGB had a frame with that same BB area layout, and I saw Andy Cooper crack one of those within a month of getting it.  I would seriously reconsider that portion of the design...