Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Some guy
Joined
·
347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm considering buying this Blizzard frame to do a parts swapover. I'm waiting on some more pics to get a better idea what shape it is in.

http://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/470915/

A couple questions: This is listed as a 2005 but I'm pretty sure it's a 2004 - are all Blizzard frames pretty much equal through the last several years? Also, I can't find the geometry data on the 2004 Blizzard - my current frame is a 17.5" from 2002 RM Fusion; can I assume that the 17.5" Blizzard will fit me more of less the same (I'm 5'10")? Anything else I should look out for when shopping for a Blizzard frame?

Thanks!
 

·
ups and downs
Joined
·
15,599 Posts
It does look like a 2004, the 2005 were the 20th anniversary edition and had no v-brake bosses.

My 20th anniversary 2005 Blizzard had the 2 cable guides on the left side of the TT and one cable guide on the right side, but they did move to the top of the TT later in the 2005 production year.
 

Attachments

·
Some guy
Joined
·
347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
That's for that info rockyuphill, I couldn't find that geometry data anywhere. Now I'm trying to find the same thing for my 2002 Fusion to see if there is much difference. One question for you - are all Blizzard frames more or less the same? Is there any reason to get one year over another (other than cosmetic preference)? Are some most sought after?
 

·
Some guy
Joined
·
347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Sorry, one more thing. I understand that at one point the geometry changed such that a longer travel fork could be used (e.g. 100mm instead of 80mm). Was that change for 2005? Meaning for my 100 mm Reba Race fork I should be looking for a 2005 frame?

sorry for the barrage of questions :).
 

·
Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
Joined
·
10,919 Posts
Man that frame has a lot of rust in its BB. Note the bolt-in hydraulic line guides... the frame was intended to be used with V-brakes or cable discs it seems, not hydraulic lines. As to geometry... 2004 is the year the hammer/blizzard went from a 80mm to 100 (actually 105, marz was counting negative travel into the total for a few years) forks. Otherwise the price is ok for a used blizzard. I'm asking more than twice that on my pinkbike ad for an NOS 2006 blizzard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
I find it interesting that they quote a bottom bracket drop of 30mm for that frame. Visibly the chain stay is virtually horizontal and the bb drop is virtually zero. OK, the quoted drop takes account of sag, of which there is none in the pic, but sag on a 100mm fork might generally be 25-30mm and the bb is 40% of the way from the rear axle to the front, so sag should lower the bb by 10-12mm. I don't see where a 30mm drop is coming from.

I'm surprised a 5-10 rider fits a 17.5. I think a 18.5 is built for you, but really it's all a matter of taste I guess. Note that the 18.5 has a 15mm longer head tube, which you may or may not prefer.

Herewith a couple of pics of a 2004 and a 2005 Blizzard, each in size 17.5.
 

Attachments

·
Some guy
Joined
·
347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
anthonyinhove said:
I'm surprised a 5-10 rider fits a 17.5. I think a 18.5 is built for you, but really it's all a matter of taste I guess. Note that the 18.5 has a 15mm longer head tube, which you may or may not prefer.
Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. Re: framesize, that's a whole other can of worms there. I'm riding a 17.5 frame from 2002 and I think the bike fits me OK, but I've also had some comfort issues (mostly lower back) with rides >1hr and I've often wondered if a larger frame might help. Problem with the Blizzard is that they are so hard to find that it's difficult to test-ride them.

I've noticed DeeEight's 18.5 frame for sale and it would be nice, but $600 is a wee bit more than I'm willing to spend on a hardtail frame at the moment. That amount of money is starting to put me in FS frame territory which I'm also considering. Ideally I can find a used 2005/06 for $350-400 in reasonable shape, but that may be asking too much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
rockyuphill said:
The BB drop calculation is based on a 13" axle height, the BB centre height is about 11.75" with an 80mm fork without sag.
Yes, that's what I mean - put a ruler on the image you posted and tell me whether you see the bb 1.25" lower than the axles. I certainly don't see that.

[note that earlier in the thread it was said that the frames were built for 100mm forks by 2004 - are you saying that's wrong?]
 

·
ups and downs
Joined
·
15,599 Posts
I'm measuring an assembled Rocky hardtail with a 80mm fork, and the BB drop is roughly 1.25" (32mm) with an 80mm fork. The BB drop spec has never changed on any of the XC hardtails since dirt was new, so it must be a "nominal" target value. I'd rather see the BB height spec.

On bikes where the BB is higher than the axles, like the SXC, it's still called BB drop even though it's actually about 18mm above the axle line. (-18mm BB drop?)

The 2004 Blizzard was only available as a frame only, it had the 30mm drop spec but no indication of the fork A2C height, but it had a 743mm standover in a 17.5" size.

In 2005 it was offered assembled with a 105mm fork it still had a 30mm BB drop and a 752mm standover in a 17.5" size which would indicate that it was 2005 when they started to spec it for a 105mm fork.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
I had a Hammer built up until recently, an '04 if I'm not mistaken. Designed fro an 85mm Marzocchi but I ran it with Reba's set at 115mm with no problem. A bit floaty at the front when going up the steep stuff. I think a lot of todays 100mm forks have a lower crown to axle length than 80mm stuff had in the past
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
That’s very interesting, but equally surprising. As you say, a bb drop of 30mm is equivalent to saying that the bb height is 300mm, or 11.8”. That would be plenty low enough if it was a riding height, but if it’s without sag, it surely indicates a bb that’s too low. i.e., with sag it would be c40% of 2.5cm lower = 11.4”.

Similarly the quoted head angle is 71, and I assumed that was a riding angle, which would be fine. But if that is also without sag, and assuming again 2.5cm of sag, then the riding head angle is 72.5, which would require more skill than I can muster.

I don’t get it. Why would anybody as clever as Rocky design a bike to have a 11.4” bb height and a 72.5 head angle?
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top