Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
well, i received an email from Sherwood saying that the new Bruja is now on hold because of a lack of "hard interest" as he put it. not exactly what i was hoping to hear. i was going to retire the matador but it looks like another season for it.

this is what the new Bruja is supposed to have, from the best of my knowledge:
7.5" of travel, swing link single pivot swingarm, x-brace top tube, 135mm rear spacing with a 10mm slotted and 12mm thru axle drop out option, floating brake option, ISCG mount, front derailleur compatible, and a Fox RP3(maybe DHX air) or DHX 5.0 option in 8.5 i2 by 2.5 stroke.

so what does everyone think? i personally want to see it made... i know Sherwood checks posts, so let him know here...

release the Bruja!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,814 Posts
Bruja

MikeyOrange said:
well, i received an email from Sherwood saying that the new Bruja is now on hold because of a lack of "hard interest" as he put it. not exactly what i was hoping to hear. i was going to retire the matador but it looks like another season for it.

this is what the new Bruja is supposed to have, from the best of my knowledge:
7.5" of travel, swing link single pivot swingarm, x-brace top tube, 135mm rear spacing with a 10mm slotted and 12mm thru axle drop out option, floating brake option, ISCG mount, front derailleur compatible, and a Fox RP3(maybe DHX air) or DHX 5.0 option in 8.5 i2 by 2.5 stroke.

so what does everyone think? i personally want to see it made... i know Sherwood checks posts, so let him know here...

release the Bruja!
Sounds like a Chamuco + 1 1/2", I'd rather see it based on an X5 style suspension.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
MikeyOrange said:
well, i received an email from Sherwood saying that the new Bruja is now on hold because of a lack of "hard interest" as he put it. not exactly what i was hoping to hear. i was going to retire the matador but it looks like another season for it.

this is what the new Bruja is supposed to have, from the best of my knowledge:
7.5" of travel, swing link single pivot swingarm, x-brace top tube, 135mm rear spacing with a 10mm slotted and 12mm thru axle drop out option, floating brake option, ISCG mount, front derailleur compatible, and a Fox RP3(maybe DHX air) or DHX 5.0 option in 8.5 i2 by 2.5 stroke.

so what does everyone think? i personally want to see it made... i know Sherwood checks posts, so let him know here...

release the Bruja!
In a conversation with the uk importer he said that one of the reasons that is was on hold was that the investment in new frame development in both time and money made it a difficult frame to develope in a market that may not have the potential to sell enough of the frames to make it all worthwhile. After watching him launch off all sizes of jumps on his x5 and seeing pictures of the guy doing a barrel roll at the sea otter on one I reckon a 6" x5 with a good set of forks can handle anything most riders can attempt. The el ceurvo is there for the real big stuff. I would imagine the only way to get a new bruja would be for enough people to actually order one then Sherwood would know the demand was there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
slowrider said:
Sounds like a Chamuco + 1 1/2", I'd rather see it based on an X5 style suspension.
well, originally it was going to be based on the Cuervo but the design hit the wall and Sherwood went with the single pivot Chamuco style over the X-5 type... he called the design a Chamuco on steroids.

i had hoped for a Cuervo style bike and (just to call it something) an X-7 as my second choice... maybe Sherwood will revisit the X series design. I'd rather have one of those anyways... really i just want a new frame to play with :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
klimt said:
In a conversation with the uk importer he said that one of the reasons that is was on hold was that the investment in new frame development in both time and money made it a difficult frame to develope in a market that may not have the potential to sell enough of the frames to make it all worthwhile. After watching him launch off all sizes of jumps on his x5 and seeing pictures of the guy doing a barrel roll at the sea otter on one I reckon a 6" x5 with a good set of forks can handle anything most riders can attempt. The el ceurvo is there for the real big stuff. I would imagine the only way to get a new bruja would be for enough people to actually order one then Sherwood would know the demand was there.
the major factor Sherwood told me is the $$$, the design is pretty much finished.

the x-5, although nice, needs a little more beef and slightly more travel for all out FRing. i would buy a Cuervo but no front derailleur = no buy... as much as i like to FR and DH, i still need to climb every once and a while, a little more seatpost adjustment would help too.
 

·
Proud lame eBiker
Joined
·
2,680 Posts
Well, he already knows I'm on board for the new Bruja.
I'll keep riding the snot out of my current Bruja in the meantime though.
 

·
T , V , & K Rider
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
La Bruja!

Internal14 said:
Well, he already knows I'm on board for the new Bruja.
I'll keep riding the snot out of my current Bruja in the meantime though.
Hey Internal14!

How nice a ride is your current La Bruja? Wow, I have a major interest and I love the frame design! I hope the new La Bruja is as cool as well! I know for some of you big time freeriders 6" travel may not be enough but for me it would be plenty( for now)!!! Yeah I hope he adds more travel to his new design though! Thanks! TIG.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
I would suggest that Sherwood consider an X-5 design, slacking the HA to 67deg with axle-to-crown of the AVERAGE of current 6" single crown forks and 66deg with, for example, a Sherman Slider Plus dual crown. then use the X-5's quad bearings with heavy-duty swingarm as standard for the La Bruja.

this would keep "retooling" costs quite low.

after a good season of techie riding on the 2004 version, my primary beef with the X-5 is its outrageously steep head angle, which fights against the extreme confidence given by the torsionally and laterally stiff rear end. the one degree slacker for '05 isn't enough, IMHO. a former BMXer like Sherwood probably finds 69deg very slack, but anyone who has spent time on FR or DH rigs will tell you that 69deg is just about NORBA XC racing steepness! ;) :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
464 Posts
Hey gonzostrike, I think your being a little unfair. The x-5 is not a DH or FR bike, so why then, should it have a HA of those types of bikes? I find my 04 with z1 is a great HA for a trailbike. Why you gotta talk smack about my bike, comon, it hurts my feelings (sob). :(
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
toad said:
Hey gonzostrike, I think your being a little unfair. The x-5 is not a DH or FR bike, so why then, should it have a HA of those types of bikes? I find my 04 with z1 is a great HA for a trailbike. Why you gotta talk smack about my bike, comon, it hurts my feelings (sob). :(
5" travel is too much for XC, toad. 6" is WAAAAY too much.

when you go above 4" travel, HA should slacken to 68deg.

that's just my opinion, but it has sound rationale based on riding steep terrain on what serve as MY XC RIDES, maybe not at all like yours or anyone else's. ;)
 

·
post-ride specialist
Joined
·
4,005 Posts
Luckily for you there are lots of companies that make bikes with the geometry you seem to like. Fortunately for me I picked up an 04 X5 that has frame strength to handle 5-6" and the agressive angles I like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
464 Posts
Maybe it depends on your background as to how the front end feels. I am kindof an old xcer, so most of my previous rides have had that geometry (think early 90's hardtails). And I had an xc dual boinger before this. It broke so I got something stronger. I don't think 5 in is too much for the type of xc here is nm, and it you really can't get much steeper trails than those in the Magdalena mountains here. They are old mining trails and pretty much go up and down.

I personally have not had any problem with the HA on my bike, and I appreciate the relative quickness of steering for picking non-life wrecking lines. What am I losing? Maybe if your coming off DH and FR bikes it feels steep, but one degree from 69 to 68 hardly seems like a huge leap that you can't get over with good technique.
 

·
T , V , & K Rider
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
La Bruja Head Tube Angle!

Hey, the 04 La Bruja has a head tube angle of 69 degrees as well according to the Ventana homesite! Being the frame was designed for freeriding does the fork choice ( a taller fork) slacken the angle abit? I see the Six Pack has a 68 degree head tube angle which I think is designed for similar use as the La Bruja! Does one fricken degree make that much difference? :D I am used to quick steering bikes with 70 degree angles from my past bikes and I think my new Salt is around 70 degrees as well! Long live the La Bruja! Oh, sorry! Thanks! TIG.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
if you go slow on the descent, "aggressive head angles" are irrelevant.

I like to haul tuchus. I don't know about you.

why don't you ask a few DH racers how they feel about 6" travel rear with a 69deg HA?

be prepared to be laughed off your chair. ;)
 

·
T , V , & K Rider
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
gonzostrike said:
if you go slow on the descent, "aggressive head angles" are irrelevant.

I like to haul tuchus. I don't know about you.

why don't you ask a few DH racers how they feel about 6" travel rear with a 69deg HA?

be prepared to be laughed off your chair. ;)
Yeah, I can see how slacker head angles would give you a more confidence hauling down the steeps. I guess I have ridden more xc style type frames but now find myself wanting to ride more aggressively. I have been able to handle small jumps and drops with what I have ridden! I figured a aggressive trail/ freeride frame would help give me the confidence to push the fun factor even more!!! :D Cause I likes to ride! TIG.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
552 Posts
I think you'll find that the X5 even under ventana's listing is a all mountain bike, not a freeride or DH bike. If you look at the 5 spot, it's 69 deg, ellsworth moment is 69 deg, intense 5.5 is 70 deg, the FXR is 68.5, the san andreas is 69 deg, even the large bullit is 69 deg. Even the turner 6 pack designed around todays 6" forks is 68 deg. So for bikes in it's range the head angle is far from too steep from the norm.

Sure you can take a x5, slap 6" rockers on it, and a 6" fork and try and make it a freeride bike, but I doubt that's what it was intended for.

Now for a big hucking freeride bike, sure 69 deg is steep, and I'd bet if they make a 7.5" travel model it will be more slack than that, the el chamuco is 68 deg, and the el cuervo is 66 deg, so I'd guess somewhere in there, probably 67 ish, which is where it seems most 7" or 6" freeride bikes fall into.

DH racers would be upset if you put a 69 deg headtube on a singlespeed with a rigid fork. Just like no doubt BMX racers would be upset if it was anything less than 73 deg. I'm sure ventana will get a good setup with a 7.5" bike.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
that's sorta what I was driving at, Todd, although I think the need to categorize bikes by head angle is mistaken.

most who think 69 is slack haven't spent much time on bikes with 66 or 67 deg HA.

and what is sensible about 6" travel with a 69deg HA? if your HA is that steep, you're not likely to be using all 6" too often. otherwise you'd auger in.

it seems to me more a point of offering 6" of travel just to say you have 6" of travel, rather than designing the bike around 6" of travel, which is pretty danged deep, no matter what anyone might try to sell you. of course in 2 more years we'll probably be seeing mfrs trying to push 7" / 7" travel "XC" bikes too. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
552 Posts
That is interesting, though I wonder if the all mountain bikes (can they possibly come up with any more classifications to sell more bikes?) are designed to blow through their travel easier with a more linear rate than say a DH bike or a hucking bike. So that the rider is still using their 5" travel on lets say aggressive XC riding, it just blows through it's travel easier, with still semi quick steering and good pedaling. Where as of course the hucker or the DH rider is concerned about having enough travel and damping with a slack enough head angle so when he lands that 8' drop, or hits that one wrong rock in the rock garden at 45mph he does not either auger in and get tossed over the bars, or get bounced back out of control as you mentioned.

Either way the rage right now is those long travel all mountain bikes. Like you said I already see guys talking about getting 5" bikes and building them up light to race XC. You don't even see many bikes under 4" anymore, and I see 4-4.5" travel bikes marketed and pure XC racers. Manufacturers will make whatever sells, and right now those all mountain type of bikes are by far probably the largest market share of the higher end stuff. All they have to do is convince people more travel will make them faster, even on XC courses. Soon the trend will go the other way and once there are no super light 70-80mm travel bikes around, they will re-introduce them as pure XC racers, 23-24lbs, 70-80mm front/rear travel, etc. and they will be all the rage. The trend will shift back to super light, lower travel efficient designs.

I may be old school but I still like low travel for XC, I was riding my 80mm front/rear racer-x on some trails today and ran into a buddy who got a intense 5.5 and we rode for awhile, and swapped bikes and he was flat out beside himself how fast my racer-x was in comparison even though he knew his bike was not a XC racer. On the flip side though I'd probalby rather ride that 5.5 for an 8 hour ride, so it's all relative. There certainly has been a shift in suspension use and desire, suspension is designed to keep the rider on the bike, and the tires on the ground to maintain traction. Many cycling companies have convinced people it's to give them a couch like ride, and as of late to give them a couch like ride on a 30+ lb long travel bike, and still "pedal like a XC racer". It could also simply be that many riders are going away from racing and more to adventure trail riding. Who knows cyclists are fickle people :)

I still think we will definately see a slacker head tube on a 7.5" bike from ventana if it comes to production. I myself have not felt the 68 deg on my el chamuco is too steep, but I do not have a DH racing background either.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,257 Posts
and, there's many types of technical terrain

and many riders, some of whom like Sherwood have BMX backgrounds with 74, 75 deg HAs so 70deg truly does feel slack to them, like it does to the XC racers who are pedaling around on 72 or 73 HA rigs.

I guess that not all terrain that compels someone to consider more than 4" rear travel is the stuff that requires slack HAs, although once you start riding bikes slacker than 69deg and more than 5" travel you realize that a big point of having more travel and slacker HA is because the bike is sitting in its travel while you are going.

XC bikes that sit in their travel are inefficient. most people seeking XC riding bikes are seeking efficiency. this is the point that I try to bring folks back around to... are they just getting an Austin Powers Vaccuum Pump, or are they getting what they need?

that's why I agree with you for XC riding if you want FS to save your lower back then why go bigger than 4"? the extra 1" or 2" more isn't really XC. it's definitely not optimal for XC as I said above.

I think what we're seeing now is the mfrs are realizing that not everyone wants either a DH racer, a long travel FR rig, or short travel NORBA XC machine.

and they're trying to figure out what combination will sell.

but they're not doing it by asking first, they're offering a wide array... for the most part, that is. Sherwood asks in here. Dave Turner asks in the Turner forum. that makes both companies very special and exceptional.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top