Glass

yes my post was an "information topic" rather than the normal question and answer topic found here. But I think some of you may have misinterrupted what and why I did the math for. High bb stocks feel like mods on the back wheel but thats where the similarities end. High bb stocks aren't short or at least not super short like mods so they don't ride like mods. You'd have to have say a stock with a short ETT (like a mod) with a high bb and a mod stem to get a mod-like feel on a stock. For example with the following geometry: Head Angle: 71º Chain Stay length: 365mm Front Center: 655 Wheel Base: 1012mm BB Drop: +60mm Stem: 150mm x 45º No one to date has made a stock bike with that geometry, have they? Why did stock bikes get longer and mods didn't? That is what I've been wondering. By looking at wheelbase alone you'd think mod were getting longer or perhaps not looking at Koxx's 2007 catelogue Zoo Python Long is 1045 but it acheives this through its chain stays (375mm) rather than through the ETT. So the rider isn't actually more stretched out than say on a Koxx monster boy which has chainstays of 350mm and a WB of only 1010mm! Again why is that? Why hasn't anyone gone in this direction: Head Angle: 71º Chain Stay length: 350mm Front Center: 715 Wheel Base: 1057mm BB Drop: +60mm Stem: 100mm x 45º Why do mods compensate for reach with 150mm stems all the time? There short stocks and long stocks but all of them are still longer than mods (excluding "street bikes"). And of course we can take this one step further and ask why all the 24" trial bikes available are just disguised BMX cruisers rather than "proper" trial bikes like a Zoo Pitbull? Personally I like to question things and I happen to question the reasons why mods don't seem to evolve geometry wise or at least not as much as stocks. At least with road bikes you know why they don't mess around with geometry and only with materials. Well I hope I've made my points a little more clear though I guess this topic has now become a discussion one rather than pure information! ciao tutti!

Ok I had some free time on my hands and decided to do some math here is the result: [attachmentid=8690] [attachmentid=8691] Ok so what's the point of this post you might be asking? Well after calculating and comparing effective top tube(ETT), aka "cockpit", of current trial bikes mod and stock I've come to the following conclusions: ALL mods are super short (talking about ETT here though it does apply to WB as well) when compared to stock bikes. Now I know that reach (ETT + stem length) is compensated in mods by using super long stems. Thus the bikes don't feel super cramped even for tall people. I personally don't think thats a good solution as it places too much weight over the front wheel and I personally hate the handling super long stems give. That's not to say there aren't advantages to this type of setup. So currently there are NO mod equivalents to long stocks such as a Koxx V-Racing or a Adamant A1. The longest Mod ETT wise is the old Levelboss long circa 2003 which is 597mm which is roughly equal to a KOT MS2 1065mm. So I think it would be interesting for brands to test out some 1050-1080mm WB mods. These would of course require shorter stems say 90-120mm but obviously still with the same rise. The other thing I picked up is that though many different frames have the same ETT the rider's position on the bike still varies mainly due to bbh (assuming same parts). Some are identical to previous models! Its like the manufactures where just playing around with one variable, eg bb drop. I'll give you an example, The 2003 Levelboss long 26" and the Vinco 8 both have a ETT of 645mm but one has a bbd of +80mm and the other zero (both were designed for Vinco). This means that if you run say a 90mm x 0º stem on both bikes you will be more bent over on the Vinco cause your feet are higher off the ground. Thats why you need to run a high rise stem on that bike and not on the Levelboss. The overall handling of the bike will also be dependant of a variety of other issues such as chainstay length and head angle (though this doesn't vary that much nowadays except perhaps in "street" bikes) This may be obvious to some of you already so don't just reply saying "duh, I figured that out years ago". I am just here thinking out loud... Well I hope this helps or at least provides food for thought, later Mod_Geometry.doc Stock_Geometry.doc

You want a cool 24" wheel geometry Here is mine: Headangle: 71.5º Wheelbase: 1065mm BB Drop: +20mm Chainstays: 365mm Now that is good geometry for trials This---> HA: 73º Wheelbase: 1020mm is BMX Cruiser geometry!!!

ok let me clarify what UCI geometry is like: headangle 70-72º wheelbase 1100-1060mm chainstays ~380mm so the Zoot´s geometry is: Headangle 73º Wheelbase 1040mm Chainstays 380mm Now to me that does not qualify as UCI and falls into the street category cause its short and steep a 24" UCI bike would have the follow dimensions: headangle ~71º Wheelbase 1080-1050mm chainstays 350-360mm (mods use 350mm chainstays, stock 380mm) My carbon fibre frame was: headangle 71.5º wheelbase 1065mm chainstays 365mm bb drop +20mm

I remember seeing that pic (the one you posted) but never heard of a 24" Piranha only the 26". I'm still waiting for someone to make a 24" wheeled trials bike with UCI geometry rather than the current trend of BMX cruiser/trials things out in the market at the moment...

And the rest of the geometry please Head angle Chainstays length? BB drop? thanks

The green one looks longer, whats the geo on this baby. Tell me its close to 1050mm pretty please with sugar on top!26in bikes get >1100mm so why cant mods be longer? A 1020mm mod is STILL SHORT!!!

I'd like to see them in a 24" size! Now that would be SWEET!

the only positive thing i see coming from this is that Mr. Belay will probably help monty catch up with the rest of the trials world! Come on how outdated is sub 1000mm wheelbase mods and whats with their 26in!!!

nice paint job and always good to hear that some else has ventured into the 24" wheel world of Trials. Shame about the geometry though. Why is it that everytime someone builds a 24" wheeled trials bike it is always super short, has a steep head angle a 26in length chainstays? What gives? you don't make mods that way what makes you think 24" is any different! Come on! Someone build a 24 wheeled trials frame around these figures: WB: 1050-1080mm CS: 350-360mm BBH: 20-60mm Headangle: 70-72º I know I had my 24" frame made like a stock/mod hybrid and not like a BMX! Short of a custom bike (eg iolo) no one is doing this!

Not bad Master William, not bad. Still mines bigger than yours lol Will that bike be making an appearance in Portugal this summer or will you have moved on to a different frame by then? From the geo it sounds like its a tweaked XTP. Did you enjoy the wakefest? I decided against going to London today so I'm in Aberystwyth till tomorrow if you care to pop in. Loads of nice places to ride over here. anyways let me know if you do come over, my number is 00351 965237588 (send me an sms and i'll call u back) later

Personally I dont think it is pleasing to the eye at least my own. It looks way too big aka tall (seat tube wise) and the rear triangle looks best suited to some cannondale cross country frame rather than a trials frame. I like the addition of a rear disc as it tends to be a rare thing these days but frankly even I might agree that running a disc on that frame might not be the smartest thing to do. but its a prototype so i'm sure they'll smarten it up for production. later

you could also try 20/17 which gives you 1.176 which is just in between 22/19 and 22/18.

I wouldnt recommend running a rear mechanical disc brake because of the cable slack (like with V-brakes). I ran a rear Avid mech and had to squeeze loads on the levers just to get it to lock. As a front brake it is amazing and beats several hydraulics out there. Get a rear hydraulic disc brake if you wanna go disc. I've been running a Formula before with an avid 185mm disc and it is sweet. I blew up a Avid Juice 7 but when it was working it was also amazing. later

Man I've never heard so much crap in my life! Do you guys even listen to yourselves? "i bet it rides crap" What the f**k? how can u tell without knowing the geometry? Sure you might disagree whether or not it is visually appealing but hey dont diss it till u've tried/know a little more about it! Personally I like the look and the fact that it has a disc mount makes me smile even more. Koxx hasn't put disc mounts on frames since their old Levelboss line from 2003? I run 24in so I need that disc mount (I'm running 24s on a Koxx LB 1100). It isn't a new ideia at all as has already been shown in previous posts but just a new take on it. I like the lack of chainstays for various reasons: less chain slap, allows you to have short chainstays (though not sure if that frame has CS shorter than 375mm) and personally it just looks better. But thats my opinion based on the pics. Once I know the geometry I'll be able to decide whether or not I'll save up to buy one or not. and thats my rant later

Ok I just saw the news and my first thoughts are KICKASS more engagement points for less money SWEET! Now for the record I have a king rear hub so I already have 72 engagement points. I got it cause it had 72 engagement points and cause it was the only rear hub with a fixed disc mount as well at the time. However, having heard about this new freewheel I'm tempted in getting a fixed rear koxx disc hub and getting that freewheel just for the extra 36 eps! I started out on a shimano hub with 16 eps and that sucks bigtime! ACS with 36eps was better but the king is even better! But again I got to say that with 36 Iis enough or at least the minimum anyone should have. With 36 I can do pretty much everything I can do with 72 but 72 feels so much better. And I'm thinking 108 will feel even better. But if you want more than 108eps then try and get hold of a stealth hub! They have instant pick up! PS: whether u put the freehub at the front or at the back the pick up is the same! Trying using logic for once people! Now it might make a difference in feel cause of weight distribution eg running a 18T freewheel at the front instead of the back cause a freewheel is heavier than a screw on cog! later people "Choice, the problem is choice" Neo

My custom 24in wheeled bike was 71.5 +20mm with a 365mm chainstays and a 1065mm wheelbase. Unfortunately I snapped the chainstay so am currently stuck with a Koxx 1100. I had hoped that the Zoot had a more UCI like geometry. Guess I'll be looking elsewhere...

Anyone know the geometry of the Onza Zoot? All I know is that the wheelbase is 1040mm. I want to know if the head angle is close to 71.5 or 74 and how short is the back end, 360 or 370mm? Thanks guys and gals