böser_wolf
Notbroken
das hab ich mich auch gefragt
Cotic Rocket Fully mit Hauptrahmen aus Stahl
- Ersteller Baelko
- Erstellt am
Anzeige
Cotic Rocket Fully mit Hauptrahmen aus Stahl .
Moehrenprincess
Spezieller Spezialbeauftragter
Das ist der Proto, denke ich
a.nienie
fiesling schorle
wenn eisen, dann auch mit dem schmiedehammer geformt
Cy hat in England die Preise für das Rocket veröffentlicht. Die EUR Preise für die Rahmenkits mit den 4 verschiedene Dämpfer-Varianten sind in Klammern:
- Fox Float RL (1649,-)
- Marzocchi Roco Air LO (1699,-)
- Fox RP23 Kashima (1799,-)
- BOS Vip'r Custom Tune (1919,-)
Die Preise passen also voll und ganz zum Modellnamen.
Wie auch immer......das gute Stück wird schon "rocken".
- Fox Float RL (1649,-)
- Marzocchi Roco Air LO (1699,-)
- Fox RP23 Kashima (1799,-)
- BOS Vip'r Custom Tune (1919,-)
Die Preise passen also voll und ganz zum Modellnamen.
Wie auch immer......das gute Stück wird schon "rocken".
Moehrenprincess
Spezieller Spezialbeauftragter
Nicht übertrieben teuer, aber etwa 300-400⬠teurer als erwartet.
Na ja, so in etwa hatte ich das schon erwartet. Liegt so etwa in der Range, die üblicherweise für Rahmen dieses Kalibers aufgerufen wird. So richtig als Sonderangebot kommt der Rest der Modellpalette ja auch nicht daher.
Nehmen wir außerdem mal an, dass Cy beim Ordern der Dämpfer vielleicht eine Spur mehr locker machen muss, als die üblichen Branchenriesen
Nehmen wir außerdem mal an, dass Cy beim Ordern der Dämpfer vielleicht eine Spur mehr locker machen muss, als die üblichen Branchenriesen
Pasend zum Wochenende ein Essay von Cy warum er Stahl für den Rahmen verwendet hat. Recht interessant zu lesen.
Dear Carsten,
One of the most notable features of the Rocket is it's choice of material. Up to a point I've been expecting rolling of eyes and 'what of have those silly steel sniffers at Cotic gone and done now?' and 'why on earth would you use steel on an FS bike? It'll be flexy and heavy, surely?' type questions. I'll be honest with you, before I started this project I'd have been right there with you if someone else had built a steel FS bike. Although we love steel for our rigid frames, the Hemlock was aluminium because, well, that's what you make full suspension frames out of, right? I'd not challenged assumptions at all with that bike, I'd just done what everyone else did. And that was the plan when the Rocket project kicked off. I was focusing on geometry and suspension feel and all the other improvements that I've talked about in the other essays I've written recently. But a couple of things made me challenge those assumptions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Firstly, I'd come back from the trade shows in late 2009 quite disillusioned with the road bike market of all things. At Eurobike there was all the usual carbon loveliness and aluminium swoopiness, even a bit of ti, but anything steel and skinny tyred seemed to be trying incredibly hard to look like it'd been built in a shed in Italy in 1953. It made me sad, because I do love steel as a material for rigid frames. Despite the fact that any frame made from steel would be heavier than the above materials I felt that no one building something modern and forward looking in steel on the road was doing the material and it's fans a disservice. You could build a road bike with lovely feel and durability at a great price and I thought there was a gap in the market, so I designed a road frame to fulfil this brief. Although we've not moved that project much further forward I'm really pleased to see that
Condor have taken the batten and run with it with their Super Acciao. What this highlighted when we were talking about the road project was what we appreciated about steel; it's durability, it's strength, it's feel and the look. I guess you could say there was an element of dogma involved, but it wasn't that there were no advantages to using steel, it's just that weight wasn't one of them and we liked the other upsides.
Secondly, as i was kicking around the specification of the new bike with some of the guys I ride with and one of them asked why I didn't just start with a BFe front end and graft the suspension onto that. His point being that with it's 35mm seat tube and other large diameter tubes, it's incredibly tough and strong and not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to stiffness. With my firmly held assumptions I dismissed this out of hand, but when I mentioned it to Paul (Cotic's organiser extraordinaire) he reminded me of our conversations about road bikes and asked why I hadn't looked at it harder, so now my bluff had been called!
It was time to do some numbers and justify myself properly. Remember, one of the key things I wanted to improve on from the Hemlock was the stiffness of the connection between the front and rear ends, so I started with the seat tube as it's where all the suspension pivots would be hanging from. This would be critical. I made a comparison between the 35mm aluminium seat tube we used on the Hemlock and the 35mm seat tube from the BFe. Let's do a science bit now so you know where I'm coming from with
this.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tubing stiffness comes from two elements; the material stiffness (the Young's Modulus, or E) and the mechanical stiffness (Second moment of area, or I). Combine the two (EI) and you get compare the overall stiffness of the part you're analysing when they aren't in the same material. Usually rigid steel frames exhibit less stiffness than aluminium ones because steel is so strong that you can use it in small diameter, very thin wall tubes so despite steel being 3 times stiffer than aluminium as a material (E is around 77 for aluminium, around 210 for steel), the mechanical stiffness
I is low because of the small diameter and thin wall. Because I is quartically related to diameter (d^4 is an element of the I calculation), increasing diameter from 35mm (usual steel down tube) to 50mm (usual aluminium down tube) makes the mechanical stiffness 4 times larger. And that's before you consider that aluminium needs thicker walls than the steel tube. So the lack of material stiffness in aluminium is overcome by using mechanical stiffness. The reason you can't build aluminium tubes as small
and thin as steel ones is because aluminium is also very much weaker than steel (typically 300-400MPa Ultimate Tensile Stength vs 1300MPa for 853), so in simple terms the mechanical stiffness in aluminium tubes is a function of needing to use lots to stop is breaking.
So, that's the simple version of the basis of my comparisons across different materials. The key difference in this case is that the mechanical stiffness is similar. The seat tubes being compared are the same outside diameter - although the steel is much thinner wall - and aluminium can't play it's 'big' hand here as you can't go larger on the seat tube without running into all sorts of compatibility problems with front mechs, tyres, seatposts and seatclamps. So where the mechanical stiffness is similar, you mutliply it by the material stiffness (steel is 3 times stiffer than aluminium remember) and what do you know? The steel seat tube is massively stiffer than the aluminium one. Not a little bit, but massively stiffer. Sure it's a little heavier too, but my main concern for this part of the frame is tying the suspension pivots to the seat tube as hard as possibly to give a solid ride feel.
So, all of a sudden steel is in the game!
From here, the next stage is a full weight analysis of a steel version of the frame. The seat tube was a little heavier than the alumium one, so I needed to be sure that lot's of 'little bit' heavier's didn't add to a whole lot heavier on the whole frame. The comparison was with the final 2011 spec Hemlock. Again, steel has the power to surprise. When you're looking at making a hard riding bike that needs a lot of durability and strength steel comes into it's own as it's so strong and durable. Aluminium, conversely, needs to be used copiously in a frame of this typeto make up for inherent low strength. That great big 50mm down tube on the Hemlock
weighs about the same as the 38mm steel down tube on the Rocket, but the Rocket
down tube is stronger. Same with the top tube. In fact the only place on the frame
where it didn't make sense to use steel was the swingarm, as the large machined
pieces required for the bearing housings and dropout sections would not only have
been unnessarily heavy, the machining of steel is very expensive compared to aluminium
so it would have been much more to make. So the swingarm is aluminium in nice big
sections to tie the pivots and axle together properly. Play to the strengths of
the material in the location they need to be used.
What we ended up with is the Rocket frame, which is weight competitive with the
similar aluminium bikes out there, but has a level of durability and stiffness which
is really high. I also have to come clean at this point and also admit that I love
how it looks too. There, I said it.
The key thing here is that steel was right for this application, right for the Rocket,
where high loads are going into the frame from the long forks and the type of riding
a 150mm travel trail bike encourages. This meant that the high strength of steel
made the weight of the frame competitive with other materials with a level of strength
and durabilty we were really happy with. In other applications - shorter travel
frames for instance, say 100mm both ends - where loads are lower and the riding
conditions aren't expected to be as arduous, these don't suit steel so well because
you can't go much lighter than the Rocket in steel whilst maintaining the durability.
You end up with a short travel frame which would be very heavy for it's class and
massively over strength. So whilst the Rocket is a great use of the material, we
won't be dogmatically using steel for all the other suspension projects we're working
on. Just as with the Rocket, I'll sit down and do the numbers and make an informed
choice, only this time I won't need pushing into it by other people ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope you've enjoyed these essays on the project. It's been great to go into so
much detail and really explain the processes and where all the ideas came from.
We'll have the first production frames shipped airfreight in mid-February for promotion
purposes for a product launch, and at that point we'll release photos because they
will be the exact frames you'll be able to buy in mid-March when the main bulk of
the production arrives.
Cheers,
Cy
Dear Carsten,
One of the most notable features of the Rocket is it's choice of material. Up to a point I've been expecting rolling of eyes and 'what of have those silly steel sniffers at Cotic gone and done now?' and 'why on earth would you use steel on an FS bike? It'll be flexy and heavy, surely?' type questions. I'll be honest with you, before I started this project I'd have been right there with you if someone else had built a steel FS bike. Although we love steel for our rigid frames, the Hemlock was aluminium because, well, that's what you make full suspension frames out of, right? I'd not challenged assumptions at all with that bike, I'd just done what everyone else did. And that was the plan when the Rocket project kicked off. I was focusing on geometry and suspension feel and all the other improvements that I've talked about in the other essays I've written recently. But a couple of things made me challenge those assumptions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Firstly, I'd come back from the trade shows in late 2009 quite disillusioned with the road bike market of all things. At Eurobike there was all the usual carbon loveliness and aluminium swoopiness, even a bit of ti, but anything steel and skinny tyred seemed to be trying incredibly hard to look like it'd been built in a shed in Italy in 1953. It made me sad, because I do love steel as a material for rigid frames. Despite the fact that any frame made from steel would be heavier than the above materials I felt that no one building something modern and forward looking in steel on the road was doing the material and it's fans a disservice. You could build a road bike with lovely feel and durability at a great price and I thought there was a gap in the market, so I designed a road frame to fulfil this brief. Although we've not moved that project much further forward I'm really pleased to see that
Condor have taken the batten and run with it with their Super Acciao. What this highlighted when we were talking about the road project was what we appreciated about steel; it's durability, it's strength, it's feel and the look. I guess you could say there was an element of dogma involved, but it wasn't that there were no advantages to using steel, it's just that weight wasn't one of them and we liked the other upsides.
Secondly, as i was kicking around the specification of the new bike with some of the guys I ride with and one of them asked why I didn't just start with a BFe front end and graft the suspension onto that. His point being that with it's 35mm seat tube and other large diameter tubes, it's incredibly tough and strong and not exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to stiffness. With my firmly held assumptions I dismissed this out of hand, but when I mentioned it to Paul (Cotic's organiser extraordinaire) he reminded me of our conversations about road bikes and asked why I hadn't looked at it harder, so now my bluff had been called!
It was time to do some numbers and justify myself properly. Remember, one of the key things I wanted to improve on from the Hemlock was the stiffness of the connection between the front and rear ends, so I started with the seat tube as it's where all the suspension pivots would be hanging from. This would be critical. I made a comparison between the 35mm aluminium seat tube we used on the Hemlock and the 35mm seat tube from the BFe. Let's do a science bit now so you know where I'm coming from with
this.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tubing stiffness comes from two elements; the material stiffness (the Young's Modulus, or E) and the mechanical stiffness (Second moment of area, or I). Combine the two (EI) and you get compare the overall stiffness of the part you're analysing when they aren't in the same material. Usually rigid steel frames exhibit less stiffness than aluminium ones because steel is so strong that you can use it in small diameter, very thin wall tubes so despite steel being 3 times stiffer than aluminium as a material (E is around 77 for aluminium, around 210 for steel), the mechanical stiffness
I is low because of the small diameter and thin wall. Because I is quartically related to diameter (d^4 is an element of the I calculation), increasing diameter from 35mm (usual steel down tube) to 50mm (usual aluminium down tube) makes the mechanical stiffness 4 times larger. And that's before you consider that aluminium needs thicker walls than the steel tube. So the lack of material stiffness in aluminium is overcome by using mechanical stiffness. The reason you can't build aluminium tubes as small
and thin as steel ones is because aluminium is also very much weaker than steel (typically 300-400MPa Ultimate Tensile Stength vs 1300MPa for 853), so in simple terms the mechanical stiffness in aluminium tubes is a function of needing to use lots to stop is breaking.
So, that's the simple version of the basis of my comparisons across different materials. The key difference in this case is that the mechanical stiffness is similar. The seat tubes being compared are the same outside diameter - although the steel is much thinner wall - and aluminium can't play it's 'big' hand here as you can't go larger on the seat tube without running into all sorts of compatibility problems with front mechs, tyres, seatposts and seatclamps. So where the mechanical stiffness is similar, you mutliply it by the material stiffness (steel is 3 times stiffer than aluminium remember) and what do you know? The steel seat tube is massively stiffer than the aluminium one. Not a little bit, but massively stiffer. Sure it's a little heavier too, but my main concern for this part of the frame is tying the suspension pivots to the seat tube as hard as possibly to give a solid ride feel.
So, all of a sudden steel is in the game!
From here, the next stage is a full weight analysis of a steel version of the frame. The seat tube was a little heavier than the alumium one, so I needed to be sure that lot's of 'little bit' heavier's didn't add to a whole lot heavier on the whole frame. The comparison was with the final 2011 spec Hemlock. Again, steel has the power to surprise. When you're looking at making a hard riding bike that needs a lot of durability and strength steel comes into it's own as it's so strong and durable. Aluminium, conversely, needs to be used copiously in a frame of this typeto make up for inherent low strength. That great big 50mm down tube on the Hemlock
weighs about the same as the 38mm steel down tube on the Rocket, but the Rocket
down tube is stronger. Same with the top tube. In fact the only place on the frame
where it didn't make sense to use steel was the swingarm, as the large machined
pieces required for the bearing housings and dropout sections would not only have
been unnessarily heavy, the machining of steel is very expensive compared to aluminium
so it would have been much more to make. So the swingarm is aluminium in nice big
sections to tie the pivots and axle together properly. Play to the strengths of
the material in the location they need to be used.
What we ended up with is the Rocket frame, which is weight competitive with the
similar aluminium bikes out there, but has a level of durability and stiffness which
is really high. I also have to come clean at this point and also admit that I love
how it looks too. There, I said it.
The key thing here is that steel was right for this application, right for the Rocket,
where high loads are going into the frame from the long forks and the type of riding
a 150mm travel trail bike encourages. This meant that the high strength of steel
made the weight of the frame competitive with other materials with a level of strength
and durabilty we were really happy with. In other applications - shorter travel
frames for instance, say 100mm both ends - where loads are lower and the riding
conditions aren't expected to be as arduous, these don't suit steel so well because
you can't go much lighter than the Rocket in steel whilst maintaining the durability.
You end up with a short travel frame which would be very heavy for it's class and
massively over strength. So whilst the Rocket is a great use of the material, we
won't be dogmatically using steel for all the other suspension projects we're working
on. Just as with the Rocket, I'll sit down and do the numbers and make an informed
choice, only this time I won't need pushing into it by other people ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope you've enjoyed these essays on the project. It's been great to go into so
much detail and really explain the processes and where all the ideas came from.
We'll have the first production frames shipped airfreight in mid-February for promotion
purposes for a product launch, and at that point we'll release photos because they
will be the exact frames you'll be able to buy in mid-March when the main bulk of
the production arrives.
Cheers,
Cy
mtbjahn
Bluecraft Bikes
Daß man ein "konkurrenzfähiges" vollgefedertes Rad aus Stahl bauen kann, hat Florian Wiesmann schon vor über zehn Jahren bewiesen:
"Sensationell: Der Rahmen von Florian Wiesmann liefert den besten jemals von Bike gemessenen STW-Wert"; Test vom Koxinga IV in der Bike 8/00.
Allerdings war/ist der Preis auch "sensationell", mehr als doppelt so hoch wie beim Rocket, dafür "made in Germany".
Das "Essay" von Cy ist dennoch (für mich) recht interessant. Die meisten werden sich aber wohl nicht die Mühe machen, das alles zu lesen und zu verstehen. Jedenfalls zeigen seine Ausführungen, daß er sich sehr viele Gedanken gemacht hat und nicht einfach Stahl verwendet, weil es zu seiner Marke passt oder `ne Marktlücke darstellt, sondern daß es technisch wirklich Sinn macht.
Zwei Kleinigkeiten würd´ ich aber zumindest mit `nem Fragezeichen versehen:
Der Vergleich der Zugfestigkeiten von Alu und Stahl scheint mir nicht ganz fair, da die üblicherweise für Fahrradrahmen verwendeten Alu-Legierungen (70xx) wohl etwas höhere Festigkeitswerte haben (natürlich trotzdem deutlich unter den Werten von "High-End-Stählen" wie Reynolds 853, Columbus Nivachrom usw.).
Daß die Frästeile in Stahl (bei gleicher Dimensionierung) DEUTLICH teurer als in Alu wären, kann ich nicht so ganz glauben, zumal sich 25CrMo4 / 4130 relativ gut zerspannen läßt. Das Problem wären hier die dünneren Materialstärken, die man für leichte Frästeile aus Stahl benötigen würde, wodurch die Teile sich leicht beim Fertigen verziehen könnten. Im Endeffekt ist Alu bei Frästeilen hinsichtlich dem Verhältnis von Stabilität zu Steifigkeit zu Gewicht einfach das bessere Material.
"Sensationell: Der Rahmen von Florian Wiesmann liefert den besten jemals von Bike gemessenen STW-Wert"; Test vom Koxinga IV in der Bike 8/00.
Allerdings war/ist der Preis auch "sensationell", mehr als doppelt so hoch wie beim Rocket, dafür "made in Germany".
Das "Essay" von Cy ist dennoch (für mich) recht interessant. Die meisten werden sich aber wohl nicht die Mühe machen, das alles zu lesen und zu verstehen. Jedenfalls zeigen seine Ausführungen, daß er sich sehr viele Gedanken gemacht hat und nicht einfach Stahl verwendet, weil es zu seiner Marke passt oder `ne Marktlücke darstellt, sondern daß es technisch wirklich Sinn macht.
Zwei Kleinigkeiten würd´ ich aber zumindest mit `nem Fragezeichen versehen:
Der Vergleich der Zugfestigkeiten von Alu und Stahl scheint mir nicht ganz fair, da die üblicherweise für Fahrradrahmen verwendeten Alu-Legierungen (70xx) wohl etwas höhere Festigkeitswerte haben (natürlich trotzdem deutlich unter den Werten von "High-End-Stählen" wie Reynolds 853, Columbus Nivachrom usw.).
Daß die Frästeile in Stahl (bei gleicher Dimensionierung) DEUTLICH teurer als in Alu wären, kann ich nicht so ganz glauben, zumal sich 25CrMo4 / 4130 relativ gut zerspannen läßt. Das Problem wären hier die dünneren Materialstärken, die man für leichte Frästeile aus Stahl benötigen würde, wodurch die Teile sich leicht beim Fertigen verziehen könnten. Im Endeffekt ist Alu bei Frästeilen hinsichtlich dem Verhältnis von Stabilität zu Steifigkeit zu Gewicht einfach das bessere Material.
a.nienie
fiesling schorle
in der tat spannend zu lesen.
Die Modellzeichnung des Cotic Rocket:
böser_wolf
Notbroken
soweit schick
was mich stört ist die festlegung auf 12mm achsmass
somit ist der rahmen für mich gestorben
was mich stört ist die festlegung auf 12mm achsmass
somit ist der rahmen für mich gestorben
Ich habe den Text gerade gelesen und hatte genau die gleichen Gedanken wie du. 300-400 MPa ist halt doch eher Camping Geschirr
Die wirklich hochfesten Alu-Legierungen haben halt eine recht bescheidene Bruchdehnung, vll war er deswegen im 300-400 MPa Bereich...
Moehrenprincess
Spezieller Spezialbeauftragter
Ich hatte den Vipe`r noch nicht, aber da Bos bisher noch keinen Mist auf den Markt geworfen hat, sie einen Ruf zu verlieren haben und der Dämpfer auf den Rahmen abgestimmt ist (was die Jungs bei Bos wirklich können), denke ich, dass das eine feine Kombi wird.
......Yup, die Einbaulänge ist 200x57. Wir werden die Rahmen nur als Rahmen-Kit verkaufen. Also inkl. Fox, Zocchi oder BOS Dämpfer.
Gibt es schon Geometriedaten?
Nee, habe ich leider noch nicht.
- Registriert
- 3. Oktober 2006
- Reaktionspunkte
- 418
cy hat mit seiner letzten newsletter ein sehr interessantes statement zum 44er steuerrohr versendet..
das wäre was für den fred hier ....
das lässt erwarten das auch die anderen rahmen früher oder eher später 44er standard haben werden...
zum glück nicht den E2.."depperd" standard..
gruss accu
das wäre was für den fred hier ....
das lässt erwarten das auch die anderen rahmen früher oder eher später 44er standard haben werden...
zum glück nicht den E2.."depperd" standard..
gruss accu
mtbjahn
Bluecraft Bikes
Diesen Standard verwenden inzwischen ja einige Firmen (Ragley, Kona, Genesis, Transition beim TransAM...). Das wird sich wohl in Zukunft auch bei Stahlrahmen durchsetzen.
Wenn die tiefe Anbindung des Unterrohrs am Steuerrohr tatsächlich so in die Realität umgesetzt wird, verliert man aber einen Vorteil des 44mm-Rohrs, nämlich daß man wahlweise Steuersatzunterteile mit innen- oder außenliegenden Lagern verwenden kann. Ein innenliegendes Lager funktioniert unten aber natürlich sowieso nur in Kombination mit 1 1/8"-Gabelschäften.
Wenn die tiefe Anbindung des Unterrohrs am Steuerrohr tatsächlich so in die Realität umgesetzt wird, verliert man aber einen Vorteil des 44mm-Rohrs, nämlich daß man wahlweise Steuersatzunterteile mit innen- oder außenliegenden Lagern verwenden kann. Ein innenliegendes Lager funktioniert unten aber natürlich sowieso nur in Kombination mit 1 1/8"-Gabelschäften.
44er Steuerrohre und deren Bestückung sind schon so'n Thema zu dem ich einige Fragen hätte 
Das würde hier vielleicht den Rahmen sprengen. Da es von den Dingern bei Cotic ne Menge gibt: Carsten, was meinst du zu nem eigenen Thread dazu hier im Cotic-Forum, in dem man Info's dazu sammelt?
Das würde hier vielleicht den Rahmen sprengen. Da es von den Dingern bei Cotic ne Menge gibt: Carsten, was meinst du zu nem eigenen Thread dazu hier im Cotic-Forum, in dem man Info's dazu sammelt?Newsletter von Cy:
Auch wenn er jetzt meint, dass er ja das Komplettbike zeigt, obwohl er den abgerockten Prototypen nicht der breiten Öffentlichkeit zeigen wollte, finde ich, dass er mit dieser "News" auch noch hätte warten können, bis im März die ersten Produktionframes da sind und er ein aufgebautes Bike mit Serienrahmen zeigen kann.Cy schrieb:Morning! I know you've been very patient with me over the last couple of months, what with me sending you all this information about the Rocket and not actually showing you a photo. There is a very good reason for this, honest! The only Rocket currently in existance is my bike, the large prototype. Whilst completely spot on in terms of shape and specification, the finish isn't exactly as it will be for production and given that it's now a very high mileage and well used and abused bike, it's not exactly showroom condition anymore ;-)
The reason I didn't want to do a fancy shoot or even a very amatuer one with this bike is because I didn't want this rather ratty looking example (with swingarm brush painted by yours truly in the garage no less!) being the first version of Rocket you saw. This despite a the fact that you're understandably interested in seeing a complete bike rather than just a diagram.
However, we were out on Froggatt doing a video shoot for Mpora Gear last week and one of the guys was mucking about with his camera whilst I was babbling at the camera about Cotic stuff, and he shot a FANTASTIC shot of my bike. Due to the sun flare it manages to make the bike look great and kind of hide my handiwork on the swingarm as well as the fact that it's not the right colour (I painted the swingarm white, whereas production will be orange to match the front end with a fade/mask to white on the seatstay). So here it is, my Cotic Rocket prototype:
The only obvious change you'll see for production is proper dropper seatpost remote routing. That zip tie and p-clip combo on my bike is just for checking exactly where I wanted the fixed clips on production bikes. If you're interested, this is the build on the bike which what I consider to be pretty optimal for what I ride and my preferences:
- Fox Float 150 RLC FIT QR15 Taper Steerer
- Fox RP23 Factory Kashima, Cotic Tune (something I'm working on as we may be able to get a tweaked shock for the production bikes)
- Full XT drivetrain. Yes, I still like 3 chainrings thanks very much.
- Magura Martas with Storm SL rotors.
- Hope Pro2's on Bontrager Dusters. Roughly equivalent to Stans Flow rims, weight-wise
- DMR Vault Pedals: The best flat pedal there is in my opinion.
- 70mm stem and 720mm bars.
- Maxxis Single Ply 2.35" tyres with tubes (don't like the feel of single ply tyres run tubeless)
- Rock Shox Reverb.
- Ti rail saddle.
It was a touch under 30lbs before I fitted the Reverb, so it'll be a little over now as I used to use a really light KCNC SC-9000 job.
So there it is, the big reveal! Don't forget you can stil book places on one of our Cotic HQ demos on 14th April, 12th May or 9th June if you're interested in a shot on a Rocket. Email if you want to book a place.
Cheers,
Cy
Bitte beachte unsere Verhaltensregeln beim Antworten. Danke 🙂
