I like the look of the frame adn think it is going to be a nice addition to the already growing frames. I think that a 2 cm. headtube gap on the frame would give it more versatility, especially with the low bar setups that alot of companies are now producing. Measuring the stack and reach and keeping it more along the lines of a Tri setup rather than a TT setup. This could also be done by lowering the B.B. drop to a 8 cm. drop, which for triathletes is generally not a bad thing because it does help with aerodynamics and also brings up the headtube in general. It will make it easier for an athlete to get there leg over the toptube in transition as well. Pedal scrape is usually not a problem because of the nature of a TT and or a Tri where there are generally not huge packs and taking an apex of a turn is generally a long sweeping process. Triathletes are generally; not all, going to a much shorter crank to get the overturn easier and to “bring up” their cadence.
Well, right now the geometry has not been firmed up. As stated at the beginning, this may well just end up being a road/ TT frame as the majority of the market is in the road segment for us. It will still make a very affordable Tri bike but I’m not sure there is such a need.
Also, a replacable dropout setup would be nice, due to all the packing and shipping and then reassembling of bikes travelling to IM races. It never is fun to tell an athlete that the race they have trained and awaited all year is now not doable on their current frame because of a dropout issue. Dropouts get beat up by triathletes from putting them in certain trainers (Cervelos and I think Kurt Kinetic which rub on the top of the der.).
The alloy version will probably have one, but the ti version will not.
Also I know that it may be more of a logistical nightmare to have it produced in carbon, but feel like it would be lighter and have a better sell value. With all of the welds and the shaping of the aluminum would probably lead to a frame around I guess four plus or minus pounds. Also the tooling and hydroforming of the tubes not to forget the number of welds going into the frame especially on the downtube add up and also the seat stay life with the quick turn to flare them out to meet the 130 mm. spec may prove to be a weak spot in the aluminum configuration.
It’s actually probably easier to make it out of carbon but the design will be remarkably different if done so. There is actually no hydroforming done to the tubes, the DT will not have many welds actually, in fact only at the HT and BB. The ST/SS cluster may be a concern but we will see how it goes with the ti version first. We have done such a bend with our road frame SS and there hasn’t been any adverse effects. We may straighten it if we find it too complicated to bend.
It is possible to take it to a welder such as Russ Denny who welds and fabricates other aluminum manufacturers frames is great, will still have certain limitations with ensuring non- frame failures either due to fatigue or complexity of welds overlapping here and their. The internal cable routing would also be much easier to have done in the carbon counterpart with the running through the frame in an easier manner and less flex on the housing itself.
There will not be many overlapping welds, only at the BB junctions and SS/ST. However we believe it will be fine. The way it’s designed now, the internal cable routing will be no different between alloy and carbon. As I said earlier, it will be alot different if we did it in carbon as we would probably enter through the TT or HT directly.
I do not know why someone also has not redesigned a fork and hub combination to incorporate an internal cable to a smaller drum hub which would clean up the front end and also get rid of the front brake being an issue either due to aero, and or getting sticky from gu s and or from sweat coming down and clogging up the bushins of the front brake. I also know that there are a thousand and one different ways to implement things so take what I think lightly, someone may have a better way of achieving certain things here or there. Feel free to contact back and let me know what you think. We could also talk over the phone if you like.
Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious. Because no one has successfully sold a frameset that includes a wheelset. Sure, any form of system integration is possible and maybe looking at it from the standpoint of design would be an excellent one, BUT people want choices, they want to chose their wheels, brakes etc etc. We have looked at incorporating a new braking system built into the fork and frame, but ultimately cannot really justify the cost.
In regards to designing this frame, the idea was to come out with a relatively cost effective and efficient design. Sure we could have gone the whole nine yards and come out with something like a speed concept or a shiv etc etc, but we don’t have the marketing muscle to push such a design. The design shown here should be relatively cost effective and hopefully achieve some/ most of the concepts needed to make it as aero as possible.
