-
- CommentAuthorjam guy
- CommentTimeMay 23rd 2009
Alright... I was just browsing through some bikes on the old Velospace and I came across this one:
http://velospace.org/node/18428
The frame just seems unnecessary. It seems like they are just doing things because they can do them. Like why the semi-vertical track ends? Why don't the chainstays connect to the BB? The front end is even weird. There is huge amount of rake on the front fork but they still cut back the downtube. If I am missing something please inform me because I am very curious.
Also:
http://www.fatbmx.com/uploads3/2008/wk26/sedcquad24.jpg
I remember these from when I first started racing. They sucked big time. Heavy as shit. -
- CommentAuthorwes m.
- CommentTimeMay 23rd 2009
That bike is specially designed for tarcking around. Any common sense notion you have about how a bike (for riding) should be designed does out the window when you are making a tarck bike (for going backwards and doing barspins). Tarcking doesnt make sense and the xenon doesnt make sense, they are a match made in heaven. Also, anyone riding that bike is probably begging for attention and it probably works. Maybe I shouldnt talk though, I ride one of the odder frames on velospace. -
- CommentAuthorSkidMark
- CommentTimeMay 23rd 2009 edited
It's supposed to look like a star.
Serious bike geeks will recognize the old Haro Extreme (and others) elevated chainstay design, and the GT (and others) triple triangle design.
this
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd279/letmetalktomark/P3090011.jpg
plus this
http://velospace.org/files/GTPIC_018.jpg
equals this
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2999940474_72e6406d9b.jpg?v=0
I guess by rake you mean HT angle. The fork has two slots- zero offset or a "standard" amount of offset. The semi vertical rear slots would allow you to change the head angle by adding a half-link to the chain. The bike is actually very well thought out for it's purpose.
The old looptail quad was a little heavy but the later Reynolds 531 Quadangle weighed 4.5 lbs (frame only).
And there was never a 24" Quad BITD. -
- CommentAuthorjam guy
- CommentTimeMay 23rd 2009
Posted By: SkidMarkhttp://velospace.org/node/18428
hmmmmmm...... I did not notice the fork. But with that head tube angle (got it right now!) even a zero offset fork would not make much of a difference. Flatland bikes have very steep head tube angles so there is a lot of control over the front of the bike. I am not really following you on the idea of the semi vertical track ends.
By the time they made the quadangles lighter no one gave a shit. They were a novelty of the time, and they are again. I have an old blue and chrome one. I should take some pictures. I do however love the looptail. I can rip a mean manual on it. -
- CommentAuthorSkidMark
- CommentTimeMay 25th 2009
Adding a half-link would move the wheel down in the dropout to get the chain tension back, therefore steepening the head angle. I agree that the head angle is slacker than it should be but they may have done that to get a decent trail dimension with a zero-rake fork. Unlike a flatland bike it is meant to be ridden from point A to point B, instead of taking the bike out of your hatchback when you get to the spot. -
- CommentAuthorjam guy
- CommentTimeMay 25th 2009
Posted By: SkidMarkAdding a half-link would move the wheel down in the dropout to get the chain tension back, therefore steepening the head angle. I agree that the head angle is slacker than it should be but they may have done that to get a decent trail dimension with a zero-rake fork. Unlike a flatland bike it is meant to be ridden from point A to point B, instead of taking the bike out of your hatchback when you get to the spot.
I get it now. That is actually really smart.
1 to 6 of 6