[jay_ntwr]

Guys, I wanted to let you know that I have started this. I spent a bunch of time working on my CAD model (sorry, PVD, I'm going to do a solid model, it's how I roll).

I'm going to title everything as WWTPXXX: Topic for "Walt Works Tubing Project" with the corresponding number 001-999 followed by what the tread is about. If It takes more than 999 topics, I've greatly underestimated how this thing is going to go down.

Despite it being a waste of time, I am going to do a solid model as best I can. I've got it parametrically defined so that all I have to change is BB drop, Seat Tube Angle, Head Tube Angle, Seat Tube Length, Head Tube Length, Fork Crown to Axle, Fork Offset and a couple of things to get the top tubes and down tubes to go in. So far, it's got no rear end though and I'll have to spend some more time on that. I think it's trivial in comparison though. I was able to test it on a few different drawings of some Shawn Walling frames that I have 2D drawings for and they updated nicely, so at least what I've done so far appears to work and I should have a working 3D model from now on. I've got a 2D drawing that is automatically updating too. I'll post some pictures of that after it's cleaned up a bit. Give me another few days and it should be ready.

Again, I don't want to deviate from the Vassago's geometry too much and I would like to measure it. I'll post some pictures as soon as they are relevant and we'll get the tubing choice worked out with Walt.

Thanks again for the support, guys and I'll do my best to do my best.

 

[DWF]

IMHO, that time is better spent practicing your joinery. I've done models in ProE & Mastercam. It's a huge time waster and unless you're doing FEA, BikeCad Pro is faster and less hassle. A 2D line drawing is all you need. Mitering and joinery is where the challenge is.

 

[themanmonkey]

I'd give a +1 to DWF's recommendation for BikeCAD. Also you could post your files and those of us with BikeCAD Pro can look at it and give better recommendations.

 

[MMcG]

Again, I don't want to deviate from the Vassago's geometry too much and I would like to measure it.

Really?

So you are going to build a long chainstayed 29er frame? Bummer.

 

[pvd]

If you have never done so, get a professional bike fit done. I've found that my MTB postion is almost exactly the same as my road position on the tops. If you get fit, you can make your bike fit you like a glove. It really helps. Comfort and power.

I think solid models are awesome, just not very valueable for the onesy constructor. Go for it if it helps you understand geometry better. When you are done, I'd love a copy of the files. Everyone models differntly and I may learn a thing or two from your work.

 

[dbohemian]

Really?

So you are going to build a long chainstayed 29er frame? Bummer.

I had never heard of Vassago cycles. I looked at the website and had trouble getting past all the acronyms like Rtech tubing, wet cat geometry (which is 100% usda choice BTW)

Honestly, I wonder who this marketing sh-t works on.... But I digress.

It is about the build process and documenting that but as PVD said, fit yourself first then design around that. Fit is paramount. It would be very interesting to at least discuss your reasons for picking a particular steering geometry, setback, CS length and such. Not just use this "jabber Wocky" oh gawd it pains me to say it, stuff.

I love the solid models too and it may not take too long but jump right into fitting and brazing/welding as DWF said. It will help a lot. Can't do too much of it.

Dave Bohm
Bohemian Bicycles

 

[jay_ntwr]

DWF/ManMonkey, I think PVD hits on this best. We all can agree it is unnecessary and a huge time effort to do something that BikeCAD just does. The difference is that I learn from building a model in the computer. It's helping me already (had an ah hah moment with it today already) understand geometry. To expand that just briefly, I talked with a builder that was explaining how (with his jig) he no longer does drawings for his frames. All he wants to know is the axle to crown, suspension correction and travel, and the effective top tube and everything just falls into place. At first I couldn't understand that at all but now I do sort of get it. In other words, starting with the fork, then the head tube, and finally the rest of the frame seems like a great way to start. That's not how I started at first and it's something I intend to correct in my model. Anyway, 3D models have already saved me a ton of time and money in woodworking. There is something to be said for knowing that it works in 3 space before cutting a hunk of wood/metal/plastic/etc. I screw up simple things every now and then that I think I can do without a model, you know, the "that's a 10 minute thing and I can do that without even sketching it". When I don't have a model, 9 times out of 10 I regret it (with woodworking at least).

PVD, I've had the professional fit done and totally recommend them to folks. It's the best $100 you can spend on a bike so I'm starting with a bike that I know to be fit properly I think. I'm happy to send you the model (and anyone else once it's done). The package I'm using is also available for trial so when it's done, folks can look at that more.

So let's agree on this. I'll get my model done and get the geometry dropped out into the 2D drawing from that. After that, I'll stick the numbers in BikeCAD and we can all talk about the geometry and you guys can tweak it and we can have an open discussion about it for those that are interested (and I am VERY interested in that). If I make tweaks based on those discussions, it'll take 5 minutes for me to have my model completely updated and a new 2D drawing.

MMcG, I appreciate feedback and criticism but let's keep in constructive. You've offered little information here other than "bummer". I'm not sure what you expect from me. I don't intend to create a paradigm shift in the biking industry during the course of my first frame build. I understand the pros and cons of long chainstays as follows (feel free to offer correction if I have these wrong):

Pros:
-better climbing
-more stable descending
-easier to get tire clearance (from a building perspective)

Cons:
-sluggish in tight single track
-harder to pull the front of the bike up over logs/roots
-harder to bunny hop

Now I visited your site and it appears you are all about the shortest stays possible. If that works for you and your customers, good for you all. Having tried both, I tend to like longer stays for me and realize it's not the popular opinion. I have talked with several folks (again, the minority for sure) that like longer stays too. I suppose that's the benefit of a custom bike is I can get what I want out of it instead of someone else's opinion of what is good. Don't take this is me being unwilling to consider shorter stays but until the geometry is complete and posted for discussion, I think it's premature to say that one parameter of the geometry is a "bummer" when nothing else is posted. Maybe it's my naivety versus your 25 years experience as a builder but I do think it's premature to judge the whole think on that alone. So tell me why I should do shorter stays and what's so great about them. I am listening and open to it if there are reasons other than "because shorter is better".

 

[jay_ntwr]

I had never heard of Vassago cycles. I looked at the website and had trouble getting past all the acronyms like Rtech tubing, wet cat geometry (which is 100% usda choice BTW)

Honestly, I wonder who this marketing sh-t works on.... But I digress.

It is about the build process and documenting that but as PVD said, fit yourself first then design around that. Fit is paramount. It would be very interesting to at least discuss your reasons for picking a particular steering geometry, setback, CS length and such. Not just use this "jabber Wocky" oh gawd it pains me to say it, stuff.

I love the solid models too and it may not take too long but jump right into fitting and brazing/welding as DWF said. It will help a lot. Can't do too much of it.

Dave Bohm
Bohemian Bicycles

Dave, this is one of the biggest reasons I want to ditch that frame. These guys have overmarketed this stuff to the point of absurdity. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the way it rides but all the marketing BS has got to go. WetCat=standard geometry w/ long chainstays really. Rtech Tubing=butted 4130. There's nothing on that website that I like about Vassago. What I like is how it feels between my legs.

Keep in mind, I've welded in the past and will practice that stuff a lot more. Right now, I don't even have any metal to weld... I'm the kind of guy that likes to get to the finish as quickly as possible in projects like this. Having to document it is going to slow me down and hopefully keep me from making a ton of mistakes along the way as I won't be rushing to the next step like my personality dictates. The last guy had 10 months and only picked up the tubes from Walt (that's not a jab at you GotDirt) so you guys give me some time to get this going. I am working on it.

 

[MMcG]

MMcG, I appreciate feedback and criticism but let's keep in constructive. You've offered little information here other than "bummer". I'm not sure what you expect from me. I don't intend to create a paradigm shift in the biking industry during the course of my first frame build. I understand the pros and cons of long chainstays as follows (feel free to offer correction if I have these wrong):

Pros:
-better climbing
-more stable descending
-easier to get tire clearance (from a building perspective)

Cons:
-sluggish in tight single track
-harder to pull the front of the bike up over logs/roots
-harder to bunny hop

Now I visited your site and it appears you are all about the shortest stays possible. If that works for you and your customers, good for you all. Having tried both, I tend to like longer stays for me and realize it's not the popular opinion. I have talked with several folks (again, the minority for sure) that like longer stays too. I suppose that's the benefit of a custom bike is I can get what I want out of it instead of someone else's opinion of what is good. Don't take this is me being unwilling to consider shorter stays but until the geometry is complete and posted for discussion, I think it's premature to say that one parameter of the geometry is a "bummer" when nothing else is posted. Maybe it's my naivety versus your 25 years experience as a builder but I do think it's premature to judge the whole think on that alone. So tell me why I should do shorter stays and what's so great about them. I am listening and open to it if there are reasons other than "because shorter is better".

Jay -

Couple of things.

1. I am not Ted Wojcik, I merely help him on a very part time basis.
2. Relax a bit - and definitely build what you want. Do what you want to do with this and feel is the right thing to do. No need to get defensive about any of it. It is after all a bike designed and built for you and buy you so you don't have to make anyone else happy, nor should you care what others are saying from the sidelines.
3. The reason it is a bummer for me personally - is that when I read your Vassago comment it made me realize that your end result isn't anything that's going to wow me. But then again, something that is not "out of the ordinary if you will" probably makes the absolute most sense for this type of venture on your part. It was late on a Thursday night and I probably should have elaborated more on my comments.
4. I still remain very excited to follow your threads and your progress in this venture and I wish you a ton of luck.
5. I appreciate you being so thorough already with your posts to chronicle your journey and your discoveries.

6. Happy Holidays!

Mark

 

[jay_ntwr]

Jay -

Couple of things.

1. I am not Ted Wojcik, I merely help him on a very part time basis.
2. Relax a bit - and definitely build what you want. Do what you want to do with this and feel is the right thing to do. No need to get defensive about any of it. It is after all a bike designed and built for you and buy you so you don't have to make anyone else happy, nor should you care what others are saying from the sidelines.
3. The reason it is a bummer for me personally - is that when I read your Vassago comment it made me realize that your end result isn't anything that's going to wow me. But then again, something that is not "out of the ordinary if you will" probably makes the absolute most sense for this type of venture on your part. It was late on a Thursday night and I probably should have elaborated more on my comments.
4. I still remain very excited to follow your threads and your progress in this venture and I wish you a ton of luck.
5. I appreciate you being so thorough already with your posts to chronicle your journey and your discoveries.

6. Happy Holidays!

Mark

That's six things Cool. I think we're on the same page. I'm looking forward to the journey myself. I wish it could be the "wow" bike but everyone so far has reigned me in and starting with something that is known that I can tweak slightly and should ride the same in the end seems like a great start. So that's my rationale behind it for all those watching. And thanks for your feedback, Mark.

 

[Walt]

Good!

We don't want a "wow" bike, or a "sexy" bike, or anything like that. We want a fun, safe bike. I think you've got exactly the right idea!

-Walt

That's six things Cool. I think we're on the same page. I'm looking forward to the journey myself. I wish it could be the "wow" bike but everyone so far has reigned me in and starting with something that is known that I can tweak slightly and should ride the same in the end seems like a great start. So that's my rationale behind it for all those watching. And thanks for your feedback, Mark.

 

[toddre]

This should be fun..can't wait

 

[rmb]

I'm already enjoying this.