Author Topic: Ugliest frame ever? (Read 7907 times)

b45t4rd · « **on:** March 21, 2009, 07:58 AM »

http://bmxtalk.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21432&sid=d9b5a3e50e4c406f85278dc7676994ec

bmxmatt1974 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2009, 08:17 AM »

KGB Matt · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2009, 08:26 AM »

I must admit that the pictures do not make it look very pretty.

However........ having seen it in the flesh its not actually that bad.

Matt

bmxbob · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2009, 10:00 AM »

I have a contender

Got it from the scrappy, as i said i would buy all of the BMXs that come in.
Wonder how many of these i will have to buy untill a TA turns up

losidan · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2009, 04:57 PM »

tis not pretty but surely the latest gt ultrabox is worse

stidds · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2009, 07:14 PM »

Quote from: bmxbob on March 21, 2009, 10:00 AM

I have a contender

Got it from the scrappy, as i said i would buy all of the BMXs that come in.
Wonder how many of these i will have to buy untill a TA turns up

That looks a hell of a lot like the new VDC changa, which strangely enough is one of the ugliest frame's ever.

proclass35 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2009, 09:36 PM »

'tis an absolute minger, but I was talking to an Elite rider who's rode it and he reckons it was spot on. The bent seat post virtually eliminates flex in the bottom bracket and according to Mr.Elite, "It just wants to go forward". i've seen the smaller versions in the flesh and in action at the Belgium Euro and it's a quality product. You could level the same sort of criticism at a ONE frame, which I personally think are pig-ugly, but they've had one or two results in the right hands...

dialledbikes · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2009, 10:51 PM »

As a titanium fan and as someone who has designed titanium BMX frames which have won Euro and National titles and made worlds finals, I was excited to hear that another company (Pure) was bringing out a titanium BMX race frame. However, I must admit I was massively underwhelmed/disappointed when I saw that pic of Laurence Mapp's bike. A beautiful material like Ti deserves a more beautiful end product.

bmxmatt1974 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2009, 10:57 PM »

after seeing the pic yesterday i thought this was a really bad looking frame. But saw 1 at the race at derby today and it didnt look as bad. still wouldnt want one though

HEYWOOD BMX · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2009, 11:54 PM »

That Pure is a pure vulgarity.....On looks alone,I wouldn`t buy one.Does the weird seattube really do anything for performance- a question for one of our enginering experts?

dialledbikes · « **Reply #10 on:** March 23, 2009, 12:16 AM »

I don't believe the claim that the seat tube being bent stiffens the BB area (especially as the seat tube seems to be welded to the downtube, not the BB). If they wanted to achieve a stiffer BB, they should have done what they've done at the head tube and have the BB shell piercing the down tube.

proclass35 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 23, 2009, 07:12 AM »

Apparantly a lot of design and development went into the Pure frame at (I think) Loughborough Uni, and the stiffness was measured against traditional frame layouts by computer modelling. Probably by 'boffins' in white coats, but I think the claim for extra stiffness comes with some serious research behind it rather than just guesswork. I had a good look at the frames again at Derby yesterday, and to be fair they do look a lot less 'clumsy' in the flesh. It is nice to see a British manufacturer trying something different though, and nobody can accuse them of going for a safe-bet and an easy buck with such a 'Marmite' shape as this.

bof · « **Reply #12 on:** March 23, 2009, 07:20 AM »

British manufacturer

I didnt realise that , cue Teamsano to give it a good slating.

teamsano · « **Reply #13 on:** March 23, 2009, 07:29 AM »

that looks amazing!

bof · « **Reply #14 on:** March 23, 2009, 07:31 AM »

Quote from: teamsano on March 23, 2009, 07:29 AM

that looks amazing!

hunterdubber · « **Reply #15 on:** March 23, 2009, 07:45 AM »

Diggler is always on the lookout for something with Extra stiffness and but they also must be flexable

hunterdubber · « **Reply #16 on:** March 23, 2009, 07:47 AM »

This frame looks like a creation made by someone who makes dogs and alike shapes with them long balloons

Moschops · « **Reply #17 on:** March 26, 2009, 10:50 PM »

Had a little go on one, it's nice but it's not a technique

Flying_fox · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2009, 10:45 AM »

I had a go on one of these at Royston yesterday and it was very very stiff, probably the stiffest BMX that i'd ever ridden, but not that light, the frame only weighs a tiny bit less than my steel Standard 125r. It wasn't as bad looking in the flesh as it looks in the pictures, but not my cup of tea, but neither are carbon forks. Each to their own though.

Thanks to Ria for letting me have a go.

dialledbikes · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2009, 10:37 PM »

Quote from: Flying_fox on March 30, 2009, 10:45 AM

I had a go on one of these at Royston yesterday and it was very very stiff, probably the stiffest BMX that i'd ever ridden, but not that light, the frame only weighs a tiny bit less than my steel Standard 125r.

I'm surprised they've made it like that.

One of the main reasons for using Ti is to make a frame that's as light as aluminium but as strong as cro-moly.

Bob_Acid · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2009, 11:27 PM »

it looks like a cheap 90's frame. The slingshot's still king when it comes to ugly.

boofy44 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2009, 12:02 AM »

looks like its been chasin parked cars.

stidds · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2009, 01:07 AM »

Quote from: Bob_Acid on March 30, 2009, 11:27 PM

it looks like a cheap 90's frame. The slingshot's still king when it comes to ugly.

Oi, watch you language Mr Acid, that is fighting talk.

Flying_fox · « **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2009, 10:49 AM »

Quote from: mike@dialledbikes on March 30, 2009, 10:37 PM

Quote from: Flying_fox on March 30, 2009, 10:45 AM
I had a go on one of these at Royston yesterday and it was very very stiff, probably the stiffest BMX that i'd ever ridden, but not that light, the frame only weighs a tiny bit less than my steel Standard 125r.

I'm surprised they've made it like that.

One of the main reasons for using Ti is to make a frame that's as light as aluminium but as strong as cro-moly.

Mike, I don’t know what the exact design criteria was for the frame, but I think making it as stiff as possible was more important than making it the lightest frame possible. I did chat with Rich T briefly about the design and he was putting more emphasis on the way the tubes we angled and where they were joined than anything else. The way the top tube came through the head tube reminded me of a VDC or a 2HIP, so it’s just a progression of that idea I think. Where the seat tube met the down tube just in front of the BB reminded me of what Giant did with their 4X bikes in 2002/3ish (when Oggy rode for them). I don’t claim to know anything about frame design and stuff like that, but as I said in my previous post it was the stiffest thing I’ve ever sprinted. Ria’s bike had carbons on it and the front end felt stupidly light when you rode it, it wouldn’t suit me at all, I’d ski jump everything and loop out manuals all over the place if I had one.

dialledbikes · « **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2009, 11:48 AM »

Miles, not questioning your analysis in any way. Just curious why someone who wanted to design a stiff frame would use titanium (which is flexier than alloy and steel when used in similar quantities).

I've been thinking of making a stiff and light frame recently but it will be made of alloy, not Ti or steel.

I still think titanium is a brilliant material to make bike frames from, but when you start making Ti frames stiffer than alloy or stronger than cro-mo, the return in investment is a diminishing one, and you have to question why titanium is being used if the weight saving benefits are lost.

My new MX20R cro-moly frames are stiffer than the Technique titanium frames, about 2x stronger and cost 66% less, but they do weigh about 10 ozs more.