something about it after you've tried! I'm actually really curious about itcheers
I forgot to say 'please publish...' at the beggining of my other comment. sorry about that.
As the owner of the said frame, I can tell you that it is nicer than you'd expect for the price.It seems reasonably stiff - I usually ride a C.Vigorelli, so it's hard to tell - and the workmanship is ok - again, for the price. It rides nicely with my current setup, and while I haven't tried too many tricks with it, Jussi was poppin' wheelies and doing barspins with it in no time.The only con is the short steerer tube. It was just barely long enough for my setup.
oh yes!based on my brief test ride I can confirm that the frameset seemed nice enough, esp. for the price. Didn't feel too heavy at all, bit crude finishing on the welds but what do you expect? On the other hand the trackends looked nicer that what I expected, though. The steering angle & fork rake are severe enough and so on. Gusset on the downtube/headtube intersection but no gusset in the BB cluster area. What else? The seatpost size is actually 27.2mm and not 25.4 as stated on their site. This is obviously good news. According to the company on this 2. generation version of the frame the toptube is bit shorter and the BB bit higher than on their first version (which apparently was a direct ripoff of the MKS Bruiser).
do you still have this frame?how is it holding up any pros ans cons?and do u know any of the Frame/Fork Specs. bc they are not listed on their website-Axle to Race Fork & (fork spacing)-Rear SpacingThanks
yo Fernando, I had that same frame for a while after K sold it to me;the rear spacing is standard 120mm, the seatpost size was 27.2mm (as opposed to what they claim) but I never measured the fork A-C, however it is quite low. The fattest tyre fitting in the front is probably only about 35mm. And not much bigger in the rear either.
Post a Comment