's Forum Archives - Cyclo-Cross

Archive Home >> Cyclo-Cross(1 2 3 )

What do you think of this Cyclo-Cross?(18 posts)

What do you think of this Cyclo-Cross?Shanks23
Jun 26, 2003 9:26 AM
It's a real basic design, nothing finalized. Just want to get people's feeback. It would be made out of the ZR 9000 super light aluminium from Trek (to keep the price down). The back wheel would be changed to something similar to the front wheel (700x30) and the crank would be an Ultegra triple so it's compatible with the Ultegra dual control levers. Any comments/suggestions/ideas are welcomed.
Step away from the PhotoShop and no one gets hurt. (nm)pauly
Jun 26, 2003 9:41 AM
re: What do you think of this Cyclo-Cross?pawistik
Jun 26, 2003 10:52 AM
Why not keep the back tire as it is, you'll turn more heads that way! Plus if anyone ever stole your bike, you'd recognize it at 400 yards.
Why the fixation on rear suspension????txcross
Jun 26, 2003 10:55 AM
How familiar are you with cyclocross racing? Front and rear suspension have been around for a long time now and have yet to really see their way into cyclocross (with the exception of headshock(sp)and the softail design offered by KHS and the like), do you think there is a reason for this.

My question for you is this, what benefits will having rear suspension add?
Why the fixation on rear suspension????Shanks23
Jun 26, 2003 11:56 AM
All I want to do is create a road bike, with large tires (700x27), and have the comfort of a full suspension mountain bike when going off road a bit. I thought my idea would fall in the lines of a cyclo-cross. Obviously, you folks seem to think otherwise and that's fine.

Thanks for showing me this KHS CX100. I didn't know it existed. It's along the same lines of what I'm looking for. I would just need to upgrade some components...

Not sure how effective the rear shock is with this design. By the looks of it, it feels like your going to fully compress the shock just by sitting on the bike.
Why the fixation on rear suspension????txcross
Jun 26, 2003 12:12 PM
here is what you are looking for.

this is a Gary Fisher 29er. Have yourself a new wheelset built up that will take 700x27, a set of drop bars, STI levers and heck you could even go with some Avid mech. discs.
Why the fixation on rear suspension????Shanks23
Jun 26, 2003 12:16 PM
Looks too heavy. If I'm going to convert a mountain bike in a Cyclo-Cross, here's what it would look like:
re: What do you think of this Cyclo-Cross?pdg60
Jun 26, 2003 10:57 AM
I think its not a cross bike.
I think its a stupid idea.
Sorry to be blunt but, in my opinion, cross bikes a truely meant to be ridden/raced rigid and light.
No suspension, no triples chainrings.

re: What do you think of this Cyclo-Cross?dpb
Jun 26, 2003 12:21 PM
harsh words, but he's got a point. In it's pure form, cyclocross is great because of it's simplicity. That's why you see single chainrings up front, or singlespeeds from cross bikes. In the CX world, if people want comfort they get a surly or equivalent with 45c knobby tires, and swap out for a set of road wheels to go fast. If you're looking for a dual suspension bike, look for some cannondales:

for example. There's a lot of ways get what you want without designing a bike from scratch.

re: What do you think of this Cyclo-Cross?snwbdrhoon
Jun 26, 2003 12:36 PM
Try it out and see what you get...

I personally loved the old 5200's on dirt roads... So smooth... I don't understand why they don't make an OCLV cross bike...

Oh wait, I do know... there's not enough demand and it's damn expensive.
Something from Kelly that would fit the billsnwbdrhoon
Jun 26, 2003 1:05 PM

DoubleWhammy Knobby X and Soft Shoulder

Ý Both bikes are art projects. Both use an Action Tec front suspension. The Soft Shoulder will be in production March'03 but only in a limited size run due to the design complications that arise for smaller and larger sizes. And due to the demand for this bike we decided to go for it in 55, 57 and 59.

The Double Whammy's rear end swings about 3". The specifically built for Kelly® Fox Shock has about 1 1/2" stroke and is equipped with a lock out. For easy adjustment Chris' used a Take Off™ Two on the Tree – which keeps it close to your fingertips and well within reach.
Kelly Bikes look like...Shanks23
Jun 26, 2003 2:23 PM
The Soft Shoulder looks a lot like the Cannondale R800 Sport HeadShock and the Double Whammy looks a lot like the Cannondale Bad Boy Jekyll...

I'm looking for a road bike with an NRS rear suspension:

And also with a HeadShock suspension like Cannondale offers, but with carbon forks instead of alluminium or cromoly.
Go for itkiwisimon
Jun 26, 2003 4:14 PM
Shanks, you know what you want and are willing to go to the expense of getting it. I wouldn't worry about what other people think. Go ahead and get what you want. Call it the "shankster" and when the idea catchs on you'll be a legend. This is probably the wrong forum for your discussion as most here are concerned with real bikes that are ridden everyday or raced on weekends.
When you get it built call back and give us the feedback on how it rides. Good luck and don't stop dreaming about new ideas or let negative feedback deter you. Build it , ride it and if it works market it.
simon in japan
Jun 26, 2003 6:22 PM
that downtube mounted shock is going to take out a kidney during portage. His back will be bruised every run up.
Jun 26, 2003 6:56 PM
there are companies that make suspension seatposts.
Interesting design. Looks like a mtb with drop bars.
Road bike suspension is fairly useless . . .JTS628
Jun 26, 2003 7:42 PM
but if you're really into it, get a XS800 and put a Thudbuster seatpost on it. I can't imagine that any manufacturer would spend the money to mass produce XC level suspension for road or cross bikes.
Want vs. need vs. realitySteve_O
Jun 27, 2003 7:10 AM
You have designed a bike that appeals to YOU but not the masses. That's why your going to have trouble trying to "sell" the concept to a bike company...


Carbon - Carbon frames such as the OCLV use a molding process. These molds are EXTREMELY expensive thus Trek has to ensure that they will be getting the economic return necessary from the product to justify creating a mold. You'd be better off pitching the concept with an Aluminum or steel frame where the tube lengths and angles can easily be manipulated. Contrary to popular belief, carbon is not always the lightest material to make bikes out of...

Whats the market? - Who wants this bike besides you?

- Road riders? (too heavy with too much bobbing and flex)
- Mountain bike riders? (why change from a standard Fuel?)
- Cyclocross Riders? (you still have shouldering issues and the market is tiny!)
- Hybrid riders? (probably too spendy for them)
- Touring? (How do you mount panniers on the rear)

Design issues:

Fork - With only rear suspension you are going to raise the seat way above the handlebars causing some severe lower back pain. You'd need a special fork to match the rear geometery. If you kept the stock Trek geometery then you'd have a very low BB and would clip your pedals on rocks and turns all the time.

Rear triangle Geometery since you are using a 700c vs. a 26" wheel you would force Trek to completely redesign the rockers, chainstays and seatstays.


Try contacting Titus. They are making 29" versions of their Racer X frame. Which will probably be lighter then anything you've designed. The fork will still be an issue...
and reality = no need for suspension in CX racesweiwentg
Jun 27, 2003 9:07 AM
the most suspension I've ever seen on a CX racing bike was a headshok. even those aren't needed in a proper CX course. if you need suspension, it isn't a CX course.
the main point of rear suspension is to keep the rear planted on the ground. but CX bikes are modified ROAD bikes - they are designed to be raced on CX courses, which are open and relatively non-technical. they don't have climbs up rooty singletrack, which is where you'd need full suspension.
like another poster said, there are 29" MTBs with full suspension. that would be a better idea. or maybe the KHS and Moots softtails.