|   Asylum in Larger size(s) | ncj01
Jan 11, 2004 4:34 PM | | I had a long talk with Chris at Speedgoat of Asylum Bikes.
For those that don't know what Asylum bikes are, its basically an Aluminum Titus Racer X optimized for 29er wheels. Retail is about $1600 and so far they are only available in 1 size, which is roughly a Med/Large with a 24.0" effective TT.
I told Chris I was very excited about a larger sized frame, and would even put a deposit or whatever it takes to get one going. He said he wasn't going to get on it until roughly 4-6 people gave a general statement of interest...not deposits per se, but he just wants to see that folks are interested before he advances the new size in his agenda. He said it will be probably late summer before the new size is available if no on "presses" him on it. If 4-6 people indicate they are interested in it now, he's advance the issue now with Titus (who makes the frames).
So what I am asking is for you to indicate if you'd be interested in a larger framed Asylum frame. Some side comment on suggested eff TT might be appropriate as well, but I'm sure we'd all trust what Chris came up with, as long as it was in excess of 24.5" or so, sufficiently making it larger from the existing 24.0" size.
Please, sound off if you're interested.
I attached a pic of the current sized Aslyum. Also see posts from AK Ken for info on his custom-spec'd asylum.
Here's an informational link:
http://www.speedgoat.com/speedgoat/INFORMATION/ASYLUM.asp
Thanks,
Nathan
NCJ01 |
| how expensive are they? | appleSSeed
Jan 11, 2004 6:22 PM | | I'd be interested if the top tube was like 24.75 inches |
| how expensive are they? | ncj01
Jan 11, 2004 7:17 PM | | (see original post) ~ $1600, give or take choice of rear shock.
If it were up to me, I'd also choose something right around 24.75", but I'd buy anything from 24.5 to 25.0... |
| re: Asylum in Larger size(s) | fattirewilly
Jan 12, 2004 5:52 AM | | At 6'5, I'd like to see an eff. TT of 24.75" to 25.0". It would be mid summer before the wife would let me get away with this....Anyone want an XL Saltamontes??
The 17.65" ST needs to be 20" to 21". Would the larger size have a dropped TT like some of the larger Racer X's. Anyhow 20" if it's straight, 21" if dropped. |
| so, 3 and counting....call it out if you're interested....(nm) | ncj01
Jan 12, 2004 7:21 AM | | |
| so, 3 and counting....call it out if you're interested....(nm) | s29er
Jan 12, 2004 7:44 AM | | I would be interested. |
| 4 and counting!!! Bring it!! (nm) | ncj01
Jan 12, 2004 9:22 AM | | |
| A Speedgoat 2.3" tire for me....................... | 2melow
Jan 12, 2004 10:45 AM | | Heck, if he's going into partnering for frames he might as well partner up with WTB and get a 2.3" Speedgoat tire made for him.
It fits, sounds good, and have you seen all the need for a meaty tire?
I'd be very interested in that.... |
| well, i'm all about tit for tat, but.... | ncj01
Jan 12, 2004 11:00 AM | | I personally won't ever run a 2.3" tire on any bike I own. In fact, I think the WTB motoraptor 29er is too big and bulky. I simply don't see why anyone would want a larger tire unless they're into downhill.
MAAAAAYbe if you're riding rigid up front and you want some poor man's suspension with lower air pressure, but heck, buy a fork....
I'm sure someone will advise me that if only I lived in a technical and rocky area I'd know and understand the reason for larger volume tires. I assure you, living 20miles from Devil Den State Park, and in the heart of the Ozark Mountains, there is no more sharp, rough, rocky terrain than this, for the sake of tires. Our mountains are not very big, but I assure you, the terrain itself can be just as rough.
Finally, for the 29er options to thrive, we need more attractive frame options, especially in the area of full suspension to attract new riders. This will get more revenue to industry suppliers quicker than fringe tire requests from the existing faithful.
All in my humble opinion...its all good for me, Brother! |
| More meat, please...... | AK Ken
Jan 12, 2004 11:49 AM | | and 2.3 isn't nearly enough!
I wanted WAY more tire than the 2.1 Nano yesterday on my snow ride.
Mobigga be mobetta.
Ken |
| You shush! Must have fatties! 2.6"! (nm) | aosty
Jan 12, 2004 8:23 PM | | nm = need meat |
| I hear you saying what you want....but not WHY..... | ncj01
Jan 13, 2004 7:37 AM | | I hear loud and clear that you guys want large heavy sluggish tires, but what I don't hear is WHY you want them.....
OK OK OK, I can understand in Ken's case where a larger volume tire should ride up on the snow better,but for the other 99.99% of the cycling community, why would anyone want such a large tire? By definition they will be slower, heavier, more sluggish. Upshot?? Smoother ride??? |
| Why not? (nm) | aosty
Jan 13, 2004 9:53 AM | | nm = need more |
| re: Why not? for all the reasons in my last post (nm) | ncj01
Jan 13, 2004 10:54 AM | | |
| Snow was why I started running 2.7s, but....... | AK Ken
Jan 13, 2004 2:52 PM | | when I'd take them off in the spring I really missed the handling, too. Nearly wrecked my neck a time or two slipping around on roots and such after going from 2.7s to 2.35s.
Admittedly, getting the light tires back on made me feel instantly strong and fast, but I finally just left the big meats on year round.
Can I ride anything I want on a 2.1? Sure. It's just more fun, faster, cushier, and (for me) better to do it on a bigger tire.
I wish they'd make big lightweight casings for my needs, but the DH tires will have to do. Now that I'm on 29 inch wheels and loving the other ride characteristics, I naturally want to have my Kate and Edith too.
Ken |
| re: Why not? for all the reasons in my last post (nm) | aosty
Jan 13, 2004 11:31 PM | | Fat tires are simply more fun. I (and others) want them - you don't have to use them. I'll be ready when someone finally ships one - my new bike is spec'd for 2.5's.
Also, you said "By definition they will be slower, heavier, more sluggish"... sounds like a some of the reasons (not necessarily correct ones) people don't want to go 29". |
| Why | Mike C
Jan 13, 2004 12:00 PM | | Nate-
Heavy is relative. If I ditch the suspension fork from my single speed in favor of a rigid ti fork, I've lost two pounds and gained a bit of fork compliance. If ditch my 600g 2.1 and add back an 800g 2.4" tire, and run it at 23psi, I've gained back most of the suspension that I lost, but I'm still 1.6lbs lighter.
Big doesn't have to mean slow or sluggish. If I'm riding that same rigid SS downhill with a 2.1 on anything that requires technique, I'm going to go slower and probably pinch flat more often than with a 2.4.
I've ridden and liked every 29" tire currently available, but I'm currently pushing hard for a 2.4 before anything else.
MC |
| I hear you saying what you want....but not WHY..... | fastskiguy2
Jan 13, 2004 7:21 PM | | Softer, better grip, and with a supple casing, has the potential to roll pretty well on uneven dirt and rocks. Plus they just look boss! I really liked the 26X24 Mutano's but that was back then. It would be just GREAT to ride those in a full sized 29" diameter. The problem is that if everybody on this board bought "the new tire" that somebody brought to market, they'd only sell a hundred tires! They really need to sell 10,000 tires, right? Well, OK, I'll buy 3 just to help the cause. |
| |
