davep
new member
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 1
Loc: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
|
|
From the pics on the Kirk site, it almost looks like a cyclocross bike, but I would assume its not.
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
   
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 717
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
I don't know this for a fact, but based on what I know about Montana 'roadies' (they ride pretty much year 'round) I would say it's a bike with road geometry, and sort of like a 'cross bike in that the clearances are pretty big to accept larger tires and fenders for foul-weather or winter riding.
'Course I may get slapped down if I'm talking out of my hat.
-------------------- Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
   
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 717
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
Perhaps Dave Kirk will drop by and tell us what a 'Montana Road Bike' is.
Maybe it's only sold in Montana, like Trout Slayer Beer. (Mmmmm, Trout Slayer Beer!)
-------------------- Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
Edited by Dave_Thompson (01/02/04 01:15 AM)
|
David_Kirk
new member
   
Reged: 12/23/03
Posts: 14
Loc: Bozeman MT USA
|
|
Hello-
How cool is this that there are folks out there in cyber land talking about my work...I'm truly pleased.
As for the MRB. I designed it for how I use a road bike here in Bozeman MT. The paved roads here aren't too bad but they all turn to dirt when you get to the edge of town. I wanted a bike that I could keep going on when the roads turned to dirt or to single track or whatever.
The bikes are sized just like a standard road bike but they have clearances for a 35c tire. They differ from a true cross bike in that they are fit to the rider like a road bike (cross bikes tend to have shorter seat tubes for more standover). they are also different from a cross bike in that the bottom bracket is low (typically an 8cm drop). An MRB is still reasonable quick handling (typically about 6cm of trail).
To sum it up ...it's a road bike that has slightly slower handleing to deal with dirt roads and it has clearances for wide tires and canti brakes.
The one I built for myself is my main bike. I have two sets of wheels for it. One set has cross tires and wide range gearing and the other has road tires (23c) and narrow range gearing. They are amazingly versatile and will go anywhere for the most part. I take it into the mountains exploring dirt roads one day and on a club road ride the next.
Thanks for the interest and Happy New Year,
Dave
|
Jeff_Nichols
journeyman
Reged: 12/18/03
Posts: 73
Loc: San Jose
|
|
I'm trying to figure out what type of "cross" bike geometry I should end up with and I guess that part of the problem is I don't know what normal cross geometry is compared to a road bike. I intend to use it for mixed trail and road rides (sounds like montana rides - with the occasional technical trail thrown in) as well as bad weather road rides and possibly some commuting.
I've heard many folks say that high bottom brackets for cross are an old-school concept from the days of clips and straps (apparently a clip clearance issue) - and that lower bottom brackets provide better handling. I'm also unsure about how much "slower" handling I'd need on a "cross" bike that makes it onto the dirt with some regularity. I guess the exact details would be the responsibility of the builder but I'm wondering if my idea of a frame with handling somewhere between my road bike and a cross bike (I've only tried the bianchi axis and gunnar crosshairs) would be reasonable for trail riding.
As you might have guessed, I'm not building a cross racer. I'll give cross racing a try - and if need be set up a race specific bike when/if the time comes.
Sounds like you're pretty well equipped to shed some light on this issue given your riding and building experience. On the other hand I don't want to ask for free input the likes of which normally comes at a (justified) cost to your customers. Maybe just some general feedback if you don't mind.
|
David_Kirk
new member
   
Reged: 12/23/03
Posts: 14
Loc: Bozeman MT USA
|
|
Hi Jeff,
As a very rough rule of thumb cross bikes tend to be about 1cm shorter in both the seat and top tubes. This gives a more upright fit and a bit more standover.
I can tell you how my personal bike is built and that might give you some insight. I'm 6'4" tall and weigh about 185lbs. My bike is 62 x 61 with a 72* seat angle and a 72.75* head angle. The bottom bracket drop is 8.2 cm and the chainstays are 42.2. This set up differs from my normal 73.5* head angle. Both bikes (std road and MRB) have about 6cm of trail....but the MRB has a bit longer wheelbase and the fork has a bit more rake for a smoother ride.
One of my favorite places to ride my MRB is on single track. There's something especially fun about it...it feels like I "borrowed" my big brothers 10spd and I'm out riding it in the woods...I hope I don't get caught !
Based on what you've told me I think that you'd like a bike similar to what I built for myself. It never feels out of place. It feels right on the road and it feels right on the trail...I like that a lot.
What size frame do you typically ride and what do you weigh ?
As for the free advice...I don't mind at all. I figure it all comes out in the end. Please feel free to ask anything you want to...I'll do my best to answer.
Dave
|
Jeff_Nichols
journeyman
Reged: 12/18/03
Posts: 73
Loc: San Jose
|
|
Great info Dave. I'm about 6'1" and 180. My road bike is a stock Calfee Tetra Pro. It's a 60 cm and the geometry is here. A picture of my bike is here. I'm running an 11 cm. stem and my position is pretty stretched out. I guess what I'm looking for is something like you've described as your MRB. Does well on the road and isn't too out of place on the occasional fire road or singletrack.
Looking at the calfee geometry it sounds like your bike's bottom bracket is a fair amount lower (1.2 cm) than the calfee. As far as fork rake and head angle, it seems like your bike has a considerably more slack head tube. I don't know what the fork rake differences might be - but it seems that most cross forks (I probably won't go custom because I'm trying to keep costs relatively low) come with 45 mm. of rake.
Thanks for the feedback - it's much appreciated - and I like your philosophy about how it all comes out in the end. For me as a consumer, there's nothing like good will between myself and a company I might do business with one day.
Cheers, Jeff
|
David_Kirk
new member
   
Reged: 12/23/03
Posts: 14
Loc: Bozeman MT USA
|
|
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the reply and for the photos. I've always liked the look of a Calfee with the gussets.
You are correct about the head tube angle. I make it a bit slacker to give a smoother ride and keep the handling quick by matching the head angle with the right amount of fork rake. it's sort of the best of both worlds deal.
As for the fork and pricing. All my frames come with a matching custom fork. I feel strongly that the fork is not a component like a seat post. It has a very large effect on the ride quality and handling and I don't feel comfortable with leaving that up to the makers of the fork.
Let me know your thoughts or if you have any questions.
Dave
|
Climb01742
journeyman
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 71
Loc: Concord, MA
|
|
jeff, as the proud, happy owner of two kirks, if you wind up with a kirk, you'll be a happy camper. equally cool, the process of getting there is very fun and informative.
-------------------- When in doubt, shut up and pedal.
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
   
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 717
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
I'll second (or third, in Climb01742's case) the comment about the process of dealing with Dave Kirk. It was fun, informative, enlightening and terribly rewarding. Especially when you take your new frame out of the box and see it for the first time.
-------------------- Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
Jeff_Nichols
journeyman
Reged: 12/18/03
Posts: 73
Loc: San Jose
|
|
The honest truth is that I was hoping to get a Kirk as my next bike but due to some unforseen expenses (who would have thought you could exceed your maximum health benefits in a year) I'm going the low budget route for the time being.
Even before his very generous responses to my posts, his work was at the top of my list of desirable frames. Hopefully by the time I get my situation in order he won't have a wait time and price combo like Sachs (well, for Dave that would be great) ;-)
|
CouloirRider
new member
Reged: 04/18/04
Posts: 2
|
|
For one thing.....a Montana Road Bike is mine and can be seen in the photo gallery on the Kirk site as photo number 16. It now has about 400 road miles on it and is built up with a 2002 Campy Chorus gruppo that includes a Chris King headset, Speedplay X2 pedals, Campy Proton wheels, and a Fizik Alliante saddle.
This is the first steel road bike I have had since I was a young teenager (Gitane 10 speed) and that was more than a few years ago since I am about Dave Kirks age (right around 40). After having my share of aluminum rigs (2 C'dales and a De Rosa Planet) since I took up cycling as an adult about 8 years ago all I can say is "Wow" after riding the frame/fork that Dave built for me.
My cycling friends will tell you that the question I always asked after they bought new titanium and carbon-fiber frames from renowned companies was "but is it the fit or is it really the materials" since I think it is an awfully expensive bet to put down thousands of dollars on a frame with a material that you have never really ridden for an extended period. I know that one should find a way to do extensive rides on a prototype of what is being considered but there are not many places to actually do that including my home town. Why do I say this? Because I also bought "blindly" and put my trust in Dave's ability to understand what I was looking for and transalate that into a ride that would work based upon the tubing and design that he incorporated. Also, I have a healthy sense of scepticism about price or pro sponsorship being an indication of what is best for non-professional riders like ourselves.
To be clear, I was looking for a modern day "racing" bike that I could train hard on and do fast club rides with while at the same time have the versatility to use a fatter cross tire for late fall/winter riding here in the Northland. My goal is to do 5,000 miles this year which realistically is about 8 months of riding. The decision to go with steel was in no way about nostolgia or retrogrouchedness but rather a gamble that modern steel in the hands of the right builder would create a ride that just feels right in a way that goes beyond scientific techno explanations (its stiffer, its lighter, the bottom bracket is more firm, its lighter, it looks cooler, its lighter and of course, that it's lighter which seems to be the mantra of modern day marketing types). I don't mean to belittle the weight issue but I am not a hardcore racer, my body fat is not at 5% or less, and my training regime is less than perfect given my family life and career demands so I am not going pay up for weight savings solely for the purpose of saving weight. I mean, the rest of the package has to work first and then I will consider the weight issue.
The result is a road geometry that has two modifications to accomadate wider tires; utilizing a 42 chainstay instead of 41.5 and the use of cantilever brakes. FWIW- I had a fitting with a renowned fitter on the east coast and must say that he trully nailed it. That fitting sheet was the basis for what Dave Kirk built.
Working with Dave was an absolute pleasure. He is a great combination of a master craftsman, a humble personality, a strong sense of customer service whereby he trully wants to create the bike you are looking for, and all around good guy. It may sound corny but there is something about the final product that is enhanced by the experience of working with a builder in what he allows you to believe is a collaberative effort of his listening to you and then responding with ideas for what he thinks is the correct way to build the frame/fork.
Of course, none of the above is important if the ride is anything less than great. What Dave built for me just feels right with a perfect balance of stiffness and resilience that provides a sense that the bike is working with you and not against you. It really is sublime and it feels like the frame, fork, and you are one cohesive unit. The aforementioned aluminium bikes that I had were certainly very stiff and race worthy but in comparison to the Kirk they felt like they were working against me and not with me. Steel, as Dave has built it, just feels right.
So what does this all add up to in terms of performance? An incredible feeling of "Oh my Gd...this is the way it is supposed to be".
FWIW- I haven't weighed it buy my guess is that fully built up it comes in around 19-20 pounds which is definatly heavier than my previous bikes. However, an unscientific survey using a computer would say that I am faster on this bike than my previous bikes including very definately being faster on the hills. Clearly, a big part of the reason is the dialed in fit but that is not all since I have ridden the exact same geo's on a ti rig. I really beieve that the other reason is the snap and responsiveness that Dave has built into the bike which is proven out in terms of performance.
So that is a Montana Road Bike in the words of a layman. Wow.
|