t dub's new rig

[thephat]

Originally Posted by JoeTruth

I was afraid you were going to say that but I think you're right. Considering my svelte 208 lbs., of course a QR would be flexy. Funny how times and technology changes. back then, a Z1 was know as bomb proof, stiff and the choice of many free riders. Now, it's like a thin little spaghetti fork. Thanks for the suggestion!

You like the Pike over Fox forks? Interesting, thanks again!

I know when the Id came out, there were really no 6 inch travel forks to run on it. The Id was way ahead of it's time.

I almost suggested a Van 36. I know folks who have done it on the Id. The BB gets pretty tall (very tall for me now), but other than that it was good. The guy still rides it and loves it. If you are running it " CA style", then the BB height thing is less of an issue.

Originally Posted by wheezy

Dude... I didn't think you were building it last night.

3:02 AM - Awesome.

Neither did I. I can be pretty impulsive in my quiet little way.

Originally Posted by Fired Yo Momma

So did you put that thing together after you kicked me out last night? Thanks for the hookup on the race face cranks, chain and sprocket. When I came back from dinner I drove past your place and it looked like the lights were still on. Nice rig

Auk and I went out for Sushi, and beers.

Then, we got to talking and ended up buying more beer and building it late.

[allison]

Looks good!

Does that mean you'll be out racing on Sat's also?

[thephat]

Originally Posted by 2wheel_lee

Super D? Well...yeah...but that's also an awesome Fontana DH racer right there! Sounds like the ideal geometry for DH. Was the seat tube made so steep required for rear wheel clearance? (the SlopeStyle equally has a steep seat tube) The seat looks very forward on its rails; was that also done for rear wheel clearance with the seat in the lower position?

If you need anyone to warm it up for you on DH race day, let me know.

It definetely would have been perfect for this last DH course. At 7 pounds heavier, I will still usually race the Sunday DH I think, but we'll see.

I prefer the steep seat tube ange for climbing. It just so happens that lowering the BB, slackening the head angle, and steepening the seat tube angle all go together. That is to say, that if you do one of the three, the other two will happen unless you correct for it. Since I wanted all three, it worked out well.

I'm sill playing with saddle position, and I have not had time to check for clearance when the saddle is low. I don't think it'll be a problem.

[2wheel_lee]

Originally Posted by thephat

I know when the Id came out, there were really no 6 inch travel forks to run on it. The Id was way ahead of it's time.

When the Id came out, it was the scariest bike I'd ever ridden. It probably still holds that record. I think my friend had a 120 or 130 mm fork on it, and the head angle was very steep. And the bottom bracket was two feet off the ground - or so it felt. Putting a 6" travel fork on it would have been certain death for the rider or the frame (you may remember that the Ids also had a tendancy to break quite frequently).

[thephat]

Originally Posted by allison

Looks good!

Does that mean you'll be out racing on Sat's also?

Maybe some day.

[JoeTruth]

Originally Posted by thephat

I know when the Id came out, there were really no 6 inch travel forks to run on it. The Id was way ahead of it's time.

I almost suggested a Van 36. I know folks who have done it on the Id. The BB gets pretty tall (very tall for me now), but other than that it was good. The guy still rides it and loves it. If you are running it " CA style", then the BB height thing is less of an issue.

I can't recall. Is CA style with the 5' air shock or the Romic 5.7"? I'm running a Romic coil over.
Looking at Fox's web site, all they show is a Vanilla 32 RLC. Do they still make a Vanilla 36 RLC? Maybe I just couldn't find it. I like a coil over fork vs. an air/spring combo.

I bet this isn't helping your hang-over headache. LOL!

[tkblazer]

awesome bike tani! i heard about it, but its good to see it all built up..

[thephat]

Originally Posted by 2wheel_lee

When the Id came out, it was the scariest bike I've ever ridden. I think my friend had a 120 or 130 mm fork on it, and the head angle was very steep. And the bottom bracket was two feet off the ground - or so it felt. Putting a 6" travel fork on it would have been certain death for the rider or the frame (you may remember that the Ids also had a tendancy to break quite frequently).

Have you tried one set up CA style with a 7 1/2 by 2 rear shock? It lowers the BB and slackens the head angle.

We saw too many broken Id frames, but not as many as a lot of folks made it out to be. I still know folks who are riding hard on the Id that they got years ago. The frame is like 6 or 7 pounds, but since it was one of the only 6 inch travel bikes at the time, folks did crazy stuff on them. When it came out, the geo was pretty std. Many DH bikes were not that much lower or slacker than the Id back then. The AM category was just beginning to be defined. I think folks were not used to low slack geo, so it would have been a hard sell.

[JoeTruth]

Originally Posted by 2wheel_lee

When the Id came out, it was the scariest bike I'd ever ridden. It probably still holds that record. I think my friend had a 120 or 130 mm fork on it, and the head angle was very steep. And the bottom bracket was two feet off the ground - or so it felt. Putting a 6" travel fork on it would have been certain death for the rider or the frame (you may remember that the Ids also had a tendancy to break quite frequently).

It does have a high bottom bracket. Personally, I like it. Gives me lots of clearance. With the wrong fork, it could make it scary. With the Z1, it's been fine or maybe I just don't know any better.

Re: Id's breaking...that's so 2001-2002 when they first came out and the rear rocker arms were released a little prematurely. That was quickly resolved and people moved-on. Every bike has the potential to be broken, if ridden hard enough and beyond what it's designed for. For some reason, people love talking about Ellsworth and their breaking. Jeez!

[Winston]

Boy, all this talk about the (CA) ID has me wanting to throw my shorter Romic back on. I liked the shorter shock for descending, but prefered the longer shock for climbing and all around XC riding. (I only ride my ID 2 to 3 times year.)

Originally Posted by thephat

Have you tried one set up CA style with a 7 1/2 by 2 rear shock? It lowers the BB and slackens the head angle.

[2wheel_lee]

Originally Posted by JoeTruth

Re: Id's breaking...that's so 2001-2002 when they first came out and the rear rocker arms were released a little prematurely. That was quickly resolved and people moved-on. Every bike has the potential to be broken, if ridden hard enough and beyond what it's designed for. For some reason, people love talking about Ellsworth and their breaking. Jeez!

Well, I was saying when they first came out. Didn't I imply that in my first sentence? So yeah, that was back then. My friends who had them were total XC guys thinking they wanted long travel bikes. They couldn't jump off a curb without crashing (which is why they didn't jump).

Nonetheless, the issues weren't quickly resolved, and between the three of my friends who had them, they each went through two to four frames (the "heavy" 180 pounder went through four front triangles). These guys weren't abusers - they didn't know how to abuse bikes. They all broke rockers, but that's not why they replaced frames. They also broke seat tubes as well under the head tube/down tube. I think one of them broke a seat stay or chain stay (I can't remember).

The shocks on those frames were all what they came with, but I'm sure a shorter I2I shock would have resolved the head angle/BB issue, so who knows why Tony screwed up with the wrong shock. I have never ridden an Id with a shorter shock than what it came with.

Originally Posted by thephat

We saw too many broken Id frames, but not as many as a lot of folks made it out to be. I still know folks who are riding hard on the Id that they got years ago. The frame is like 6 or 7 pounds, but since it was one of the only 6 inch travel bikes at the time, folks did crazy stuff on them..

I'm really not surprised that many people are still riding them. A couple of those friends who were breaking their Ids were also breaking GT i-Drives at the seat tube. I had the same generation i-Drive that was prone to failure at the seat tube. I had that frame longer than those guys had two or three frames, and I never had a problem (although I think a lot of sitting contributed to their failures). I rode that i-Drive as hard as I did any other bike, and I even put a coil shock on it for better DH and jumping performance. So my point is that some people seem to break frames more than others, and sometimes it doesn't have anything to do with abuse or hard riding.

[2wheel_lee]

I merged the replies....

[Winston]

Ironically, years later Dave would make the same mistake with the Highline.

Originally Posted by 2wheel_lee

The shocks on those frames were all what they came with, but I'm sure a shorter I2I shock would have resolved the head angle/BB issue, so who knows why Tony screwed up with the wrong shock.

[2wheel_lee]

Originally Posted by Winston

Ironically, years later Dave would make the same mistake with the Highline.

Maybe the mistake was not using the wrong shock, but maybe the vendor welded the shock mounting tabs in the wrong location from what he specified?

...Back to Tani's sweet new ride.

[JoeTruth]

Originally Posted by 2wheel_lee

Well, I was saying when they first came out. Didn't I imply that in my first sentence? So yeah, that was back then. My friends who had them were total XC guys thinking they wanted long travel bikes. They couldn't jump off a curb without crashing (which is why they didn't jump).

Nonetheless, the issues weren't quickly resolved, and between the three of my friends who had them, they each went through two to four frames (the "heavy" 180 pounder went through four front triangles). These guys weren't abusers - they didn't know how to abuse bikes. They all broke rockers, but that's not why they replaced frames. They also broke seat tubes as well under the head tube/down tube. I think one of them broke a seat stay or chain stay (I can't remember).

The shocks on those frames were all what they came with, but I'm sure a shorter I2I shock would have resolved the head angle/BB issue, so who knows why Tony screwed up with the wrong shock. I have never ridden an Id with a shorter shock than what it came with.

I'm really not surprised that many people are still riding them. A couple of those friends who were breaking their Ids were also breaking GT i-Drives at the seat mast. I had the same generation i-Drive of the same generation that was prone to failure at the seat tube. I had that frame longer than those guys had two or three frames, and I never had a problem (although I think a lot of sitting contributed to the failure). I rode that i-Drive as hard as I did any other bike. So my point is that some people seem to break frames more than others, and sometimes it doesn't have anything to do with abuse or hard riding.

Well, I've not done a survey per say but speaking for myself, I'm not exactly a small guy (195-210 lbs) and although I do like keeping the rubber on the dirt and at most, air 2-3 feet, I do ride fairly aggressive and have been hard on the bike over the years. I've never hard a crack or a problem with the frame. I've blown out the Romic and the Z1 on a couple of three occasions but that's not uncommon considering. Other then being a little flexy at times, the frame itself has been great to me. Not to say that applies to everyone. Like Tani said, Tony's vision was pioneering and ahead of it's time. I just think he rushed it out there a little too quickly and was too caught-up in the Ellsworth weight mystique and over extruded the rocker plates when they should have been solid instead.
The Moment, for instance, is the bike I would've love to get, if it existed at the time. Not much heavier but so much stiffer with better head angles and over all geometry.

[Schecky]

Gotta love a new Ventana! Congrats!

[Nagaredama]

Ventana's are nice bikes!

140mm of travel with a slack HA would be fun!

[maxwell]

Saw it this morning........

The thing is freak'n SWEET!!

[scruffylooking]

Am I the only one who wants a better picture of this bad boy?