PDA

View Full Version : Cheap hardtail frame


silly_yak
August 31st, 2009, 09:20 AM
Getting ready to buy a frame in the next week or so, needing to go cheap, and am really afraid of used since I have already been burned. Here are the ones I am considering:

http://www.performancebike.com/bikes/Product_10052_10551_1062451_-1_45500_20000_45508

http://www.ibexbikes.com/Bikes/ALP-FRM-Details.html

http://www.pricepoint.com/detail/19505-175_SETRK9-3-Parts-60-Frames/Sette-Reken-Hardtail-Alloy-Frame.htm

Thoughts?

philvw
August 31st, 2009, 10:27 AM
The Ibex and PP are both 6061, and are probably even made at the same factory in Taiwan. The Perf is 7005 which is a different alloy, and I believe it will make it stiffer, but harsher ride.
The Ibex doesnt list frame geomerty, but the other two do. The top tube length in a 20" in one is equal to the top tube length of the 18" in the other. This is why you cannot buy on frame size spec alone. Grab the measurements and put them into a spreadsheet and compare them closely. If you want to do due diligence, compare that to a production bike at a shop and go ride it and see which one you like.

silly_yak
August 31st, 2009, 10:47 AM
I am basing the frame size on what my current frame measures. All three get very close to my current measurements.

CRAIG2
August 31st, 2009, 10:50 AM
Buy the red one.

DaveG
August 31st, 2009, 10:51 AM
I am basing the frame size on what my current frame measures. All three get very close to my current measurements.

Really? The TT measurements look different between the frames. Look @ the actual TT measurement; it's by far the most important.

For example, the 20 inch Pricepoint frame has a TT almost 2 inches longer than the Performance frame. That's a MASSIVE difference. The TT on the Performance and Ibex frames seem really short.

jlc115
August 31st, 2009, 10:56 AM
Never heard anything bad about the sette frames. Seen a ton of builds based on them online. They look really lightweight too.

silly_yak
August 31st, 2009, 11:40 AM
Really? The TT measurements look different between the frames. Look @ the actual TT measurement; it's by far the most important.

For example, the 20 inch Pricepoint frame has a TT almost 2 inches longer than the Performance frame. That's a MASSIVE difference. The TT on the Performance and Ibex frames seem really short.

Why would you use actual as opposed to effective? Isn't effective The distance between the headtube and seattube on a horizontal plane?

My current effective T-T is just under 22"

Performance 16" is 21.5", 18" is 22"

Sette 14" is 22", 16" is 22.6"

riderx
August 31st, 2009, 12:02 PM
Throw this Nashbar frame (http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_173009_-1_201511_10000_201512)into the mix while you are at it. Built it up as my wife's first MTB a few years ago to see if she liked it. It's now her townie after we upgraded her. Perfectly serviceable bike that rides fine. You can almost always find a Nashbar coupon to bring the price down even more. When I bought it I think I paid $80 w/ the coupon.

silly_yak
August 31st, 2009, 12:50 PM
Throw this Nashbar frame (http://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_173009_-1_201511_10000_201512)into the mix while you are at it. Built it up as my wife's first MTB a few years ago to see if she liked it. It's now her townie after we upgraded her. Perfectly serviceable bike that rides fine. You can almost always find a Nashbar coupon to bring the price down even more. When I bought it I think I paid $80 w/ the coupon.

I believe it's the same frame as the Performance, I think they are owned by the same company. Thanks for the heads up though.

riderx
August 31st, 2009, 01:05 PM
I believe it's the same frame as the Performance, I think they are owned by the same company. Thanks for the heads up though.

Yes, same company, possibly the same frame, but it's usually easier to find coupons for Nashbar and the frame come without stickers :thumbsup:

jlc115
August 31st, 2009, 01:16 PM
frame come without stickers :thumbsup:
For the win. FTW. :thumbsup:

DaveG
August 31st, 2009, 01:20 PM
Why would you use actual as opposed to effective? Isn't effective The distance between the headtube and seattube on a horizontal plane?

My current effective T-T is just under 22"

Performance 16" is 21.5", 18" is 22"

Sette 14" is 22", 16" is 22.6"

I miss-typed; effective is what you want. If you want a bike w/ a short TT then these are fine; it's just that the TT length doesn't grow in proportion to the size increase. Just curious, but how tall are you? A 22" TT is pretty short. My wife is 5'5" and she rides a bike w/ a longer TT than that.

silly_yak
August 31st, 2009, 01:53 PM
I'm 5'7" and as I said, my current frame is just under 22". To comfirm that I didn't mis-measure my frame (too old to find geo on it) I tried out my friend's Trek 6500 15.5", and it felt good as well with a T-T of 15.6".

I thought about going with a longer frame, but I would either have to be more comfortable leaning over more, or play with stem/seat posts to get a comfortable position without throwing off my weight distribuation too much. Currently I have a nice 40/60% balance.

jabberwocky
August 31st, 2009, 01:58 PM
Thats... pretty short. I'm 5'-6", and my XC bikes are all in the 22.5"-23" effective top tube range. And I generally like my bikes to fit small. Are you running a real long stem?

DaveG
August 31st, 2009, 02:10 PM
Thats... pretty short. I'm 5'-6", and my XC bikes are all in the 22.5"-23" effective top tube range. And I generally like my bikes to fit small. Are you running a real long stem?

Yeah; I'm 5'8" and I'm running 23.5 on my bikes. <22 is really small.

silly_yak
August 31st, 2009, 02:28 PM
Thats... pretty short. I'm 5'-6", and my XC bikes are all in the 22.5"-23" effective top tube range. And I generally like my bikes to fit small. Are you running a real long stem?

Good question. I think it's a 110mm, but I would need to check.

It sounds like you are running what would considered a medium frame by many makers.

silly_yak
August 31st, 2009, 02:29 PM
An interesting measure would be from where your sit bones touch to where you grab the bars.

jabberwocky
August 31st, 2009, 02:40 PM
It sounds like you are running what would considered a medium frame by many makers.Nope, my 5-Spot is a small (22.6" effective top tube, although Turner does make an extra small with a shorter measurement). My SS is custom with a 23" effective top tube, but is based roughly on a small Karate Monkey. My old hardtail was also a small.

FWIW, I run a 100mm stem on the 5-Spot and an 80mm stem on the SS.

I have other bikes with shorter top tubes, but those are bikes designed for a different purpose than XC (my DH bike has a 21" TT, and my DJ bike is 22ish, both with real short stems). I find cockpits that short rather unpleasant for XC though.

silly_yak
August 31st, 2009, 05:18 PM
I am a bad measurer. Upon remeasuring, I think my current frame is closer to 22.5". Glad that you all questioned me, it caused me to recheck.

chowderbutt
August 31st, 2009, 06:46 PM
we have an older ibex in our fleet and its great. I had a performance cromoly frame I loved but hated the aluminum nashbar and cromoly frame (harsh and heavy in that order) Id go ibex or sette.

RootbeerFloat
August 31st, 2009, 09:08 PM
I would go for the Pricepoint frame due to the longer Eff TT length at 24" for the XL (which would be my size). I'm actually thinking about picking one of these up.

I bought a Leader (http://www.leaderbikestore.com/pd_ld_516h.cfm) a couple of years ago to built a cheap Al bike and loved it. Actually used it to race several Xterras because it was responsive and nimble (though very stiff). Ended up cracking the downtube, sending it back for a replacement, then cracked that downtube in the same place. It's been hanging in my garage ever since then, slowly canibalized for tires and the such.

My opinion, if you're looking for something nimble and fast, climbs good standing, then get something with a longer TT like the Leader or Sette. Looking for something more comfortable or all around bike, then a shorter TT frame maybe a size up.

Remember though, at this price level in aluminum, depending on how much you ride, don't expect more than 2 years out of it. 1 might be more realistic if you ride hard and stand a lot.

plojaa
August 31st, 2009, 10:07 PM
Remember though, at this price level in aluminum, depending on how much you ride, don't expect more than 2 years out of it. 1 might be more realistic if you ride hard and stand a lot.

I'm still on my 1996 Specialized Stumpjumper A1FS HT - and its been raced alot the past few years....so I guess it does go to show some frames can last.

CRAIG2
September 1st, 2009, 09:01 AM
I'm still on my 1996 Specialized Stumpjumper A1FS HT - and its been raced alot the past few years....so I guess it does go to show some frames can last.

Yep, got a Y2K aluminum frame here without any problems - it's low end, too - I think I paid $599 for the bike originally. I think RootbeerFloat needs to just stop running into stationary objects. Frame might last a little longer. Just a guess. :rolleyes: :flushed:

RootbeerFloat
September 4th, 2009, 09:48 AM
Yep, got a Y2K aluminum frame here without any problems - it's low end, too - I think I paid $599 for the bike originally. I think RootbeerFloat needs to just stop running into stationary objects. Frame might last a little longer. Just a guess. :rolleyes: :flushed:

Maybe I should have heeded the warning: "Enviromentally Green Product. Made from 80's recycled lawn chairs by Steve in the back."