Getting Rad On Drop Bars, Velo Orange Leaks New Bike Model?

Looks great!
Chris DeKerf is very much still around, doing his own thing here in Vancouver as well as building for Chromag:
http://www.dekerf.com/

so craigsj what you are saying is that you want a mountain bike?

@craigsj

It’s not supposed to be a modern mountain bike, so I doubt it’s intended for a suspension fork. A sloping top tube and modern-looking rims (what’s wrong with box-section, btw?) would be outside of Velo Orange’s aesthetic.

It’s more similar to Bruce Gordon’s Rock ‘n Road.

Ha, I was thinking DeKerf too!

This just looks like someone put mountain tires on a touring bike. Thought about doing this on my Surly Disc trucker. That would justify criagsj’s unreasonable complaints

The problem is that frame is too small for the rider, head tube needs to be long enough so the dude can be comfortable in the drops. Off road drop bars for the win! Like this:

http://jacquiephelan.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/mg_4397.jpg

@craigsj

-Okay so maybe the rear der cable is a tad long, although best practice is to have 2cm of straight cable leading into the der for minimal cable friction, so one could argue that it’s passable

-There is nothing technically wrong with a long steerer and spacers if the steerer is designed for it. Visually it’s not the best, but is quite typical for touring.

-WHO SAID FORKS HAVE TO BE SUSPENSION CORRECTED!!!?? Shorter forks can be designed to ride better and they are lighter. Plus some people are good enough riders to not want suspension.

-Long chain stays ride awesome! Not all my bikes have them but anyone who thinks chain stays have to be short has no idea of bike design. 500mm stays, wicked!! Not everyone wants to manual everywhere. The further behind the rider the rear wheel centre is the less vertical deflection the rider gets when the rear wheel goes over bumps, that means a more comfortable, and faster ride. The benefits of this generalisation are bike type specific (to a point), but you get the idea…

-Polished and anodised box section rims. Okay….well they will look nice for a long time and they will ride well. What’s wrong with that?

-The rotor size is perfectly adequate for the type of riding this bike will be getting

This bike was designed by someone that knows what a segment of the market wants. Maybe not what all people want but for some this will be a very appealing bike.

Shredding in onitsukas! I care!

I like it. Looks like a practical commuter, touring, leisure ride bike. I do have to agree that the headtube is a little short, but it’s not exactly serious to have a few spacers, and especially if it’s a prototype bike it’s very understandable.
What I am concerned about is that the QR skewers are on the wrong way round. I know bolt through axle MTB forks have the skewer that way round – QR isn’t designed to go that way round. Oh, and the fact he’s not riding clipped in… 😉

Nice bike though…

@craigsj – I guess you don’t like cross bikes either…as that’s kinda what this bike is like. Not everyone wants a full sus, 1×10, all singing, all dancing MTB. Some of us like the challenge of using rigid forks, some even like singlespeed…shock horror!

This frame is too small for the rider, but that’s probably because they just had an employee ride a short section of trail to take a few pictures. Not a big deal.

I read this early before others had replied to craigsj … and others beat me to calling out those ludicrous comments.

It’s clearly a small framed bike. Go look at any 48cm or smaller touring frame and they will all have smaller headtubes. I see this as a product of big wheels and a small frame. No way around a short head tube with that combo. I also don’t see a damning reason why a short head tube is a big deal. As others have mentioned, bike fit is way more important.

Monster cross bikes should all have a raised stem for using the drops in the dirt. It’s almost a defining characteristic of the genre. Anyone who has taken a drop-barred bike off road knows the brakes and the handling are in the drops but being hunched over in a road position sucks off pavement. Also, on a steel bike, you can raise the stem to the top of an uncut steerer without a risk of damaging the bike. Surly claims outright that doing so will not void their warranty. I’m not sure that’s the wisest choice but you can do it.

In my opinion, the worst thing for a rigid bike’s geometry is a suspension corrected fork. It unnecessarily raises the front end. I know several custom builders refuse to make a frame that way (soulcraft). Some claim it even makes the frame weaker. You should choose either suspension or rigid. The only reason, in my opinion, that suspension corrected rigid forks exist is for larger manufactures to produce a bike that appeals to a wider audience.

This bike reminds my of the Soma Wolverine, which I own and ride regularly. It is a phenomenal bike and their first run sold out quickly, which proves there is a high demand for bikes in this style. I like many of the details on the Soma better than this bike though with the exception being this rig will looks like it will fit fatties.

“Be careful”, your comments are particularly right on the money, cheers mate. Craigsj, sorry for all the bashing, buddy. Don’t take it too hard. Open your eyes and stop aggressively making claims that aren’t well founded.

Once again the BR comments section’s ratio of “experts” to frames actually built is staggeringly high.