Dang!

Thanks for the props! I used solidworks to model and render these. I think the FEA being done is with ProE

I'm building them, and am currently waiting on delivery of the last few tubes before they hit the shop floor, then onto testing, then into sales. The FEA is being run now. If I can get the pricing right Adam will sell stock them I hope. I'm also very into building custom geo frames for people who know the difference. They would obviously be built to order. and she's light 1.6-1.7kg... That's the plan anyway. There can be rim brake mounts aswell.

Definitely a nice piece of work Ben. Studying architecture? 44twentysix 44trials 44 for what ails yah...

Here's a little something that I fooling around with.

Trail- right. meant that... and I have included this into my frame wheelbase, and I am not designing forks...yet. :wink2: But it has to be effecting the steering in some way... but I think I am off in my thinking, it effects it in a different way... If one had a fork w/ 0mm of Trail and a 90 deg. head tube angle, they would still be able to turn the wheel, but if they had the same head tube angle and 110mm of trail they would not be able to turn the wheel. hmmmm.... So what head tube angle seams the best again?

Good point. I think another part that some might not take into consideration is the degree of rake that most forks have built into them, which effect both the wheelbase total and the feel. As I recently found out, the average rake amounts to +40mm to +45mm. So if you start with a 72 degree head tube, with a 410mm fork w/ 45mm of rake, that is an effective 66.25 degrees of realized angle.

I am all ears to suggestions about geometry and methods, in particular suggestions that have supporting information such as reason why. Both Pete and TRA mentioned the stated their thoughts on a geometry that they felt would feel right to them and why, and the information was offered separately. And though I do not know either of them personally, I felt their reasoning was sound, and interestingly similar. As far as other and future geo's I am willing to build to what the trials community wants. This also further proves my feeling that no single geo. is right for everybody. If you are rider that honestly knows and can realize the subtleties from one geo. to the next, than you may need a frame built to your specific needs.

Geometry of the Stock: I took a suggestion from both TRA and Pete Wright (sp?) 1095mm wheelbase 71.5 deg. head tube angle +30mm bottom bracket rise 385mm chain stays 26.5" cockpit Based on the Czar Long.

Here is a shot of the drive train spacing w/ a White Industries FFW. I think it'll be good, but I need to model up a Dengura... anyone got one? ... custom geo. frames! Now that's a novel idea, and something I already mentioned I would consider doing. I could see swappable dropouts being a possibility.

I'll see what I can come up with, as I need to run the stock though analysis.

I will look into posting some results, if I do can you read them?

I was wondering when someone might draw this correlation, but I suppose I am the antiDeng! oh... this one I'm doing with a nail file, only after I have output the tool paths on my Etchasketch.

Ask and you shall recieve.

I'm using a Solidworks/FeatureCam CAD/CAM package. The FEA was done by a friend and fellow rider, who does FEA for Manitowoc/National Crane,he used ProE I'm pretty sure. The last rendered image was the current stock version. Not much comment on it so far? ">

Wow, that's nutty, processed plate bolted together. Hey, thanks for digging for that. Ash, If I do go for a color, it will definitely be solid. My thinking was, if I get the frame hard anodized (which adds a really hard layer to the outside of the aluminum) as far as I know the color is dictated by the material. 6061 is a matte black and the 7 series tends toward a silver or Ti look. As my bike is mostly 6061 with the stays being 7005, the stays will be a different color. So maybe I go with a black frame with painted stays? Or I color anodize the whole thing?

How did that happen? I've seen axles break plenty but not the hub shell?

reply on it's way now, thanks.

Well that's not very confidence inspiring, but it is always a possibility. nah!

I keep hearing about Pete Wrights frames but I have never been able to find a picture, any one? Don't cry Johny, it's just a frame after all...

The majority of the frame is 6061 T6, the stays are 7005 T6 (I couldn't find the tubes in any other material). But it is possible to weld them together and bring them up to T6. You can't do this with 7075 though.

Good point!

Yes I am going to weld the mounts on today. Here is a preview of the stock. It is in early phase design, based on the mod. The seat tube area will be addressed.

By the way, well done for doing this. It seems as though you're just a random guy who decided one day to make this, but is there more to it? I mean are you an engineer, or planning this as a major business?

There is no doubt that the designs and methods are contrary to an economical approach, but with the trend of having more and more machined components as a part of the frame build, it seams appropriate. I also think that the method is on a similar difficulty level to Koxx, as they move towards very complicated monocoque and hydro-formed frame designs, (The dies for these frames are very sophisticated and not affordable for the little guy) which is a smart move on their part as it sets them apart. Thus I have chosen my approach in a similar manner. Over the past years there have been topics floating and discussions had about cnc'ed frames, most of it pretty discouraging, the main points are design, weight, rigidity, ride, and price. Weight being a big one, my frame weighs under (should we'll see today) most mods, and looks like it will weigh as much as the Hydroxx- The design has tried to take into account weight, strength, style, and fabrication. The frame should be very rigid. The ride characteristics will be determined by riders, so we'll see. Finally price: $3000.00 is not far off from the prototype cost, but in the grand scheme of things it's pretty cheap, ... I'll not go into my whole "Prototyping needs to be more accessible" monologue. So the long and short of it is, I am not sure what the final cost will be, but I feel the frame will retail $1350.00 US or in that range. The price will be effected by the demand, as it's far cheaper to 500 frames than it is 10. My thirst thought was, yeah you're probably right, but then I thought... planes are bolted together? It's funny you should mention this, all the first comments I got from riders had to do with this head tube joint. When we ran the FEA, the headtube is one of the coolest areas. But it is hard to calculate a botched tap, or a TRA sized hook. But I feel pretty confident. Thanks guys, keep the comments and ideas coming.

The idea has been tossed around, the issue will be the fastener method. The frame will only be as strong as the fastened connection, and aluminum doesn't hold threads all that well... But if it was a through bolt/pinned connection, something like a Horst link suspension, but with no travel. That could work. interesting....