6.7in rear travel, under 30lbs with no carbon in sight, tapered head tube, Maxle rear and it looks great. Unfortunately the proto has DT cable routing which would be deal breaker for me no matter how good the ride is.
pinkbike.com
2010 Giant Reign X
6.7in rear travel, under 30lbs with no carbon in sight, tapered head tube, Maxle rear and it looks great. Unfortunately the proto has DT cable routing which would be deal breaker for me no matter how good the ride is.
pinkbike.com
bottom tube reminds me a lot of the norco slopestyle bikes :P
last Giant dually to get the bent downtube!
I'd need to see one with a less ugly seat/post combo to make my mind up. Not hot but not ugly, I'd ride it after 4 beers maybe.
Looks good.
Look alright, simliar to the DH Glory prototype in AMB mag this month
i Ride an ANTHEM
You could just run continuous outers?Originally Posted by LordOnOne
has DT cable routing which would be deal breaker for me no matter how good the ride is.
Says the person who only just recently borrowed my post on the reasons why DT cable routing sucks and how to do it properly.
I’ve read or spoken to several people inside the bicycle industry and no one has given me a good explanation of why DT cable routing is used or why a good proportion of bikes still use rearward facing seat clamps. All I’ve gotten is arguments that are easily swayed to my view point, people who don’t care and several pathetic excuses like “it works for Specialized” - someone working for Rocky Mountain and I read an even more pathetic one from Hans at Ibis but I can’t quite remember it.
I agree with the questioning of DT cable routing. It looks like ot could easily be done along the top tube of the new Reign X. I wonder if they think the bend from the bars to the first cable guide might be too tight if they went that way though? Otherwise, full length housings are the go.
The rear facing seat clamp slot annoys me too. I think it has been done that way traditionally because it was easier to shape the seat lug that way on the old frames. Then when they moved to fillet brazed steel frames they probably cut the slot after brazing the front triangle together, otherwise the seat tube would distort too much if the maker didn't have great temperature control when brazing a seat tube with the slot already cut. There isn't much space to get in from the front and cut a slot facing forward once the frame is together either. So i think it's a left over tradition from way back when...
One reason that made some sense as to why modern manufacturers continue with rear facing seat clamp slots is that the stress relief hole in the base of the slot distributes the stress too close to the seat tube/top tube joint and may cause failure. Probably not a significant amount of failures but why risk it if a manufacturer doesn't want to take too many chances with warranty claims. Still, i prefer a forward facing seat tube slot.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
