Monday, September 27, 2010


Greetings and Salutations,

Here is what I have in mind:

A la the Drakkar:

  • Head tube rings 
  • Frame pump peg on the head tube
  • 3 sets of water bottle cage mount
  • Chainstay bridge with a fender mount
  • Seatstay bridge with a fender mount
  • Seatstay rack mounts
  • Split brake housing stops at 10 o' clock

Drakkar pictures 

In addition:

  • Down tube shifter bosses
  • Chain hanger inside the drive-side seatstay (?)

Comment away.



Erik said...

I'm a fan of the head tube rings on both, myself. They add a finished look to the head tube. Chain hanger and pump peg - mehh.. Everything else is as I would do it, if'n it were me.

James Black said...

You didn't list them, but you're probably including a rear derailleur housing stop and a derailleur cable guide under the bottom bracket.

Everything you listed sounds good to me. I am glad you are using downtube shifter bosses, as I would definitely consider using downtube shifters on this bike.

Will the seatstay bridge fender mount have the hole facing the tire for cleaner mounting of metal fenders, or facing the seat tube like the Drakkar had it?

Sean said...

@Erik: The rings for both? That is good to know.

@James Black: Yes, the housing stop and guide are included. As for the seatstay fender mount, I find it easier to access to the mount when it faces the tire. I am open to discussion on this as well.

giant hogweed said...

Is this the time to start asking about braze ons for a front rack? Is the nitto M12 going to be the go to front rack for this bike? What about mid fork braze ons or top of the crown braze ons like the kogswell?

Sean said...

@giant hogweed: The Nitto M12 is what I would recommend for either model. The forks of both models will have the three-point provisions for this rack. These forks will have lowrider mounts as well. For more information on the forks, you will want to scroll down to the 9/20 posting on this topic. While we are at this, I have decided to order prototypes, so we will know for sure how the M12 would fit both models.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like all the braze-ons one would need. It's weird what bikes come with pump pegs and what ones do not. I like the option, though I've seen some that go on the seat stay with the idea that it will be easier to portage the bike over unrideable stuff.

Any chance of a fender mount under the fork crown, or is it already planned?


Sean said...

@Mark: I think we will want to keep the peg on the head tube. The Drakkar has a fender mount under the fork crown. We can do that for the Snekka and rSogn as well.

Anonymous said...

The chain hanger is a good addition. I appreciate having one on my Kogswell.

Erik said...

I like the under crown fender mount, although if you're going to do it again, I would suggest adding a weld-nut to the little plate, rather than simply threading the plate. The one screw that consistently loosens up on my Kogs is that under-crown fender mount, and I am afraid to really tighten the screw for fear of stripping out that thin plate. Having more than a couple mm of thread engagement would be nice.

stevep33 said...

that list is good. Fender mounts facing the tire, front and rear, are great.

James Black said...

I also do prefer the fender mounts facing the tire - it would make it a lot easier to mount metal fenders.

The only other thing I can think of that you're not including would be pump pegs to carry a frame pump on a seatstay. This would have the advantage of keeping your top tube free for portaging, but might have some drawbacks, such as more complicated brazeons.

Sean said...

@Anon & @Erik: I think the prototypes will have a weld-nut mount under the fork and the chain hanger.

@James Black: I will check into braze-ons for carrying a pump on the left seatstay. Do you have any particular braze-ons in mind?

James Black said...

I think Jan Heine's GBUB would provide the model for the seatstay pump brazeons, but I don't know the details. Others following this discussion could probably describe the brazeons in detail. This would be an elegant way to go.

JerryTX said...

This may be a stretch, but what about three bottle braze ons per fork leg to take the Salsa Everything Cage?

Anonymous said...

For brake cable bosses, how about the middle of the top tube? 12 o clock, so that those of use who run the brakes the opposite way have an easier time. Or does that just make it harder to make the case to those who still run them normal. 10 should be fine for cross, but I'm a little wary of having stops anywhere near my neck or shoulder for some reason.

Sean said...

James Black: Thanks for the tip. I will check into it.

JerryTX: That is a possibility. This is for the rSogn, I presume? The high-trail Snekka at 68mm trail won't handle well with such load; however, the optional 65mm fork would be a boon to this set up.

brothersterno: I am fine by the middle-of-the-top set up. I would like to know what others might have to say about this.

By the way, I wanted to ask everybody if the Snekka and rSogn should have seatstay rack mounts even with single-eyelet rear dropouts and bridge fender mounts. Fwiw, I might be inclined to do without seatstay rack mounts. Or perhaps I should also ask if we will want to go with double-eyelet dropouts if we keep the mounts.

Guitar Ted said...

Chain hangar- good.

I like the tire-facing fender mounts. Much easier to deal with. I would dispense with the seat stay mounted rack mounts.

I like the sound of the three point Nitto front rack, but would this be a bad idea for the high trail Snekka fork?

Other braze ons sound fine to me.

Guitar Ted said...

Oh! I missed saying something about the seat stay mounted pump, which I am in favor of if possible. Otherwise I would appreciate a pump peg behind the head tube.

Sean said...

Guitar Ted: I too wonder about mounting the Nitto rack on the high-trail Snekka.

One possibility is to offer the Snekka only with the 67mm fork. That way one can have several options of using this fork for the desired effects of low-trail handling; selling this fork ($$$) for a fancy CX fork; or keeping this fork for the future, and get a 47mm CX fork.

If we all concur to go this way then Rawland would not offer the 67mm fork separately. That would make the Snekka, let alone the fork even more desirable, imo. This would make choosing a color for the Snekka a lot easier as well.

Russ said...

Seatstay rack mounts are a definite plus (even if we have only one set of mounts on the dropouts).

Regarding the pump peg, I'd rather have the pump mounted anywhere it's not exposed because to the fact that it could break off in a fall (especially if the pump is mounted at the time of the fall). This may not be an issue with the Snekka, but the rSogn seems to be built for more abusive riding.

Behind the seatpost would be ideal, as it's most out of the way in that spot. However under/over the top tube would be fine as well.

For what it's worth, I love the idea of the triple mounts on the fork legs.

Erik said...

WRT the seat stay pump mount, if this ends up being a 20mm pig sticker like that of seat tube mounts, then I vote no. If it is unobtrusive, then sure.

I definitely vote for the 47mm fork. I really like the "low and slow" geometry that GT describes for long days on loose surfaces.

Anonymous said...

Given that 44-47mm rake cyclocross forks are readily available with an axle to crown around 400mm, I would love a low trail 67mm rake fork on the snekka, simply because those aren't readily available.

I do understand the value of having a gravel grinder bike with a lower rake, but the higher rake is so much rarer, and more valuable to the randonerds and commuters.

bking45 said...

One problem for head tube pump mounts is that in the larger size frames, you can't find a long enough pump -- that would be a problem with the 'L' and 'XL's. So I like James B.'s suggestion.
I think these are going to be highly desirable bikes even if you sell the fork separately. There is a large market (in relative terms, of course!) for people who like their bikes but want a low-trail fork for them. The Snekka and rSogn offer so many things that no other frames do, including old frames, that I really don't think selling forks separately will cannibalize your sales.


alex wetmore said...

I think the fork on the rSogn should have mid-fork mounts, 165mm up from the dropouts. Those work with Tubus, Bruce Gordon, and most other front lowrider racks. They are also good mounting points for a custom porteur rack. This frame has good front load geometry, but the fork needs the mounts to complete that promise.

I would like to see a pump peg behind the seat tube or on a seatstay. Having it on the head tube makes it much more difficult to use a frame bag.

I don't get excited about chain hangers.

I hope the bridges are equidistance from the axle and have mounts facing the tire to make mounting a metal fender easy.

Michael_S said...

Well I'll throw my feedback in too. I like the baseline braze-ons exactly as listed. I was hoping you wouldn't clutter up the bike with 10,00 attachments like the Fargo...I could live with the lowrider braze ons but fork water bottle mounts yuuuk..there are 3 planned already! the best place for a pump mount is behind the seat tube if there is room.
Please keep it simple!!


James Black said...

I think it would be a mistake to omit the seatstay rack mounts, as these are valuable both for mounting a rear pannier rack for touring, and for mounting a small support rack for Carradice-style saddlebags. They are particularly important if you have the seatstay bridge with a fender mount facing the tire, as it would be difficult to attach a rear rack to the bridge that way.

I also think dual rear eyelets are highly preferable.

I would make the Tubus Fly the basis of design for the rear - these are such elegant, lightweight and strong racks. They can attach either to a seatstay rack mount or to a traditional drilled seatstay bridge, but I'm not sure if you could effectively attach it to a seatstay bridge with a tire-facing mounting point.

One of the challenges of combining fenders and racks on the same eyelet and mounting points is that the fenders probably don't want to be screwed down as tight as the rack. With metal fenders, it can be desirable to leave the fender mounts at the eyelet a bit loose so that they can function as a quick-release in the event that something gets caught. At the seatstay bridge, the preferred mounting is through a leather washer to absorb some vibration, but one might prefer to mount one's rack directly to the frame and not through a cushioning leather washer.

It would be nice to have a frame pump mounted behind the seat tube, but are the chainstays long enough to allow this? I wouldn't know.

Anonymous said...

I'd rather give up the third waterbottle than the seatstay mounts. With all that this bike is, it makes sense to go with two dropout eyelets.


Jim G said...

I never use typical seatstay chain hangers, since the chain just ends up munging the paint. I'll also add dual eyelet fork dropouts if those haven't yet been mentioned. I like the non top-tube pump peg options, but only if those are sized to some specific pump model(s). Otherwise the pumps never fit well. I'm generally in favor of keeping the brazeons to the usual, in favor of keeping costs in check.
I have three bottle cage mounts on a current bike, and I use the third one...never. There's also a behind-the-seat-the pump peg, but it doesn't work with any known pump, especially with a fender installed, when there's not enough clearance left to fit a pump there.

jgras said...

I can live without a third bottle cage mount–just because I have no need of three–, but I think that seatstay rack mounts are a good idea.

Anonymous said...

Seat stay rack mounts: Since this may be a great touring frame the are needed. Put them on the inside of the tubes for a cleaner look.
Low rider mounts: A possible touring bike needs them.
Pump peg: Are there really so many using full size pumps on an "rough road ride" with fat tires like this? I have a nice Blackburn mini pump mounted under a bottle cage - does not rattle, is safely stored and works well for reasonably sized tires.

Guitar Ted said...

@James Black: Are your concerns for mounting racks etc in relation to the Snekka, rSogn, or both? Curious since I don't see the Snekka as being a touring bike at all, especially if the tubing selection is to be light as possible. Seems incongruous to design a frame to ride sweetly unloaded and then expect it to perform admirably loaded as a touring mule.

@Anonymous: I like a frame pump for reasons of volume/less strokes to fill a tire and to ward off the occasional dog attack. YMMV. Of course, there are any number of air supply options available to cyclists, but frame pumps are less work when the work needs to be done, and have a classic appeal that "mini" pumps do not have.

Ryan said...

I don't like pump pegs since I don't ever use them, but they won't really bother me.
I've personally never been able to fit that third water bottle, It always rubs on my small ring.
Please, oh please down tube shifter mounts! These are useful for STI and bar ends, too since they give you a place for handy barrel adjusters. I'll personally have bar end shifters on mine.
Also, please add lowrider mounts on the fork.
I'd like to see a combined rear brake cable hanger and light mount like the Boulder bikes have.
One more thing: Cable housing guides on the top tube, rather that cable stops, so you don't have bare cable running along the TT.

alex wetmore said...

I do use a full frame pump on my rough stuff bike. With large tires it is nice to have a pump that has a good air volume and which gets them up to pressure more quickly.

The Tubus Fly is a great rack, but doesn't work well with large tires like the Quasi-Moto. The tire clearance is about 60mm, but the racks are rarely true and sit off center slightly. I have to remove my Tubus Fly when running the Quasi-Moto tires. The Vega is fairly similar (but 100 grams heavier) and has much better tire clearance. It benefits from the seatstay mounts.

Big Head Red said...

Head tube rings - What are these?

Frame pump peg on the head tube- If not on the seatstay, then I'd say yes. Preference given to seatstay mount.

3 sets of water bottle cage mounts- OK, but 2 is plenty for me. The third is unnecessary.

Chainstay bridge with a fender mount- Yes, with both mounts equi-distant from and facing toward tire

Seatstay bridge- Yes, both mounts equi-distant from and facing toward tire

Split brake housing stops at 10 o' clock- Yes. I'm opposed to the 12 o'clock idea because it will unnecessarily increase friction in the housing.

I can take or leave the seatstay rack braze-ons, as long as there is an option for mounting the Tubus Fly (could be on the seatstay bridge).

Dual eyelets at the dropout, for sure.

I agree with Alex's comments about a mid-fork mount for a rack/lowriders.

Chainhanger- don't really care.

Jim G said...

I'd run v-brakes on mine, so I don't care about a seat-stay cable hanger. Surly makes a nice stainless aftermarket one that works great.

For those of you interested in using the rSogn as a touring bike, remember that it's low trail -- it'll work best with most of the load up front. Lowrider mounts on the fork are key, IMHO.

JerryTX said...

For the Snekka -
I would like to see the HT rings, and seatstay frame pump mount. The 3rd bottle cage is absolutely key for me, and bosses for 2 more cages on the legs would be very appealing to me. Fender mounts on the bridges, please face these towards the tire.
I would like to see all cables run on the TT (not at all a fan of DT cable runs that get mucked up). There are ways of running road front derailleurs with a top pull cable, either by brazed on pulley or a Speen conversion adapter.
I would like to see seatstay rack mounts up top and dual eyelets at the dropout would be nice. I'm ambivalent about the chain hanger.

jimmythefly said...

I'm in favor of seat stay rack bosses for both bikes, because P-clamps or a single strut to the seatstay bridge/fender mount area are both less desirable options.

I don't see the Snekka as a touring rig, but I still think having the seatstay bosses is a good idea. Especially if the Snekka has the low-trail fork, even with most of the load up front, a rear rack is still nice sometimes for bulky/light things like sleeping pads.

I think the Snekka should have the low-trail fork standard. Either the owner can sell it for a readily-available standard-rake CX fork, or Rawland could sell a frame-only option, and keep the fork to sell separately themselves.

John Grasty said...

As a bit of a newb, maybe it is time that someone (Sean) possible outline the vision for each model. That way our suggestions and ideas could support the design intent rather than my plans to take such and such model and turn it into something it was never intended to be.

Sounds great though. I can't wait.

Hal said...

I think the initial set of braze-ons is already good. I would put a limit on the number of total braze-ons since these aren't loaded touring frames. I appreciate the desire towards flexibility, but just as you don't have horizontal drops and disc mounts, I don't think you need bottle cage bosses on the forks, and you probably don't really need low-rider bosses, either. I think with seat stay braze-ons and canti mounts in the front you can run front and rear racks, rear panniers, saddlebags, handlebar bags and framebags, which should be adequate. If someone is dying for more they can ask an LBS to do the additions for them.

I use frame pumps (I'm partial to old soliblocs), but fitting a pump on dual pegs depends on the pump. What particular make/model of pump are people planning to use?

As to where to put the pump pegs, there are always trade-offs. Frame bag? Then you should keep them out of the main triangle. Behind the seat tube? A problem with big tires, fenders and/or short chainstays. On a seat stay? Only if you're not running panniers. I don't have an answer. I tend to run them in the triangle, but I don't use frame bags. Besides, I use detachable pegs, so I have some flexibility there. I could live without the brazed on pegs for this reason.

It's a great design so far, and it seems to avoid the "designed-by-committee" featuritis.

James Black said...

Hmm. I am sorry to hear from Alex that the Tubus Fly doesn't have enough clearance for the fat tires. Dear Tubus, please make an extra-large version of the Fly.

Andrew said...

I see from the photos that the Drakkar has a The Drakkar has a forward facing seat post slot/binder.

If there is no seat stay cable hanger to run cantis, I suppose the seat post slot/binder would be rear facing in order to attach a hanger? Or does it matter about the orientation of the binder versus the slot?

orc said...

One thing I'd really like to see would be a porthole in the downtube and chainstay for taillight wiring. Using zipties to hold the wiring onto the outside of the bicycle is clutter (as well as providing many opportunities for rocks to spring up and cut the wires.)