# Who remembers ....



## 02GF74 (6 Nov 2009)

.... elevated chain stays?



 <----- linky


----------



## Matty (6 Nov 2009)

Oh yes. Oddly enough, I was just going to post a similar thread asking if anyone was lucky enough to own one of those Alpinestars Al-Mega machines from early 90's.

Always wanted one of those.

Matt


----------



## Mr Pig (7 Nov 2009)

What's the point of that?


----------



## dan_bo (7 Nov 2009)

I wanted one of them Alpinestars jobs or a Yeti FRO no problem. Amazing looking bikes. 


I nearly picked up a FRO last time I was in Japan (long time ago).


----------



## lukepinkhandbag (7 Nov 2009)

The point of em'? Observe you can remove the chain without splitting it for a kick off. But more importantly it meant you had no crap stuck between BB and tyre. Really though it was a way of creating a unique selling point for a couple of brands.


----------



## Jonathan M (7 Nov 2009)

lukepinkhandbag said:


> The point of em'? *Observe you can remove the chain without splitting it for a kick off*. But more importantly it meant you had no crap stuck between BB and tyre. Really though it was a way of creating a unique selling point for a couple of brands.



How so when the chain still passes through the front & rear mechs?

The main puposes behind raised chainstay bikes were cosmetic, and the fact that they were less prone to the chain becoming trapped between chain ring & chain stay, but didn't prevent chainsuck itself, just gave more clearance to mean the drivetrain had less chance of jamming up.


----------



## Steve Austin (7 Nov 2009)

they were flexy nasty things


----------



## Matty (7 Nov 2009)

Mr Pig said:


> What's the point of that?



I seem to vaguely remember some selling point about being able to shorten the distance from BB to cassette and thus better acceleration. Sounds like tosh to me!

Still like the look of the Alpinestars..........


----------



## Mr Pig (7 Nov 2009)

Steve Austin said:


> they were flexy nasty things



That's what I was wondering. Every time I see a bike that's radically different from the norm my first thought is to wonder if the manufacturer is trying a desperate gimmick to set themselves apart. I can't see any other logical reason for a frame like that.


----------



## 02GF74 (8 Nov 2009)

the left chain stay could be convential so less flex. notice also the unnecessary strut between the brake boss and chain stay - excess weight really.

as ^^^ says, the 2 triangle frame, with straight tubes cannot be bettered, anything that is different is flawed in some way. look around you now, how many elevated stay frames do you see? None, that is how many.


----------



## Mr Pig (8 Nov 2009)

02GF74 said:


> notice also the unnecessary strut between the brake boss and chain stay.



I think it's probably advantages. With the right side of that triangle being so short it's possible not very strong and flexes a fair bit.


----------



## Piemaster (12 Nov 2009)

Looks like a prime candidate for a belt drive,not having a frame to split.


----------



## fuzzy290 (7 Dec 2009)

How much did I want one of those frames instead of my 'boring' standard design??

The fact that only a few companies made elevated chainstay frames and they disappeared after only a few years shows how good a design it was.


----------



## Norm (7 Dec 2009)

Jonathan M said:


> How so when the chain still passes through the front & rear mechs?


Taking the wheel out is easier (to most people) than splitting the chain.


----------



## Jonathan M (8 Dec 2009)

Norm said:


> Taking the wheel out is easier (to most people) than splitting the chain.



I don't follow you? Luke said about chain removal without splitting it, but as it still passes through the front & rear mechs you either split the chain, or start faffing round removing jockey wheels from the rear mech and the cage screw from the front mech - personally using a chain tool & splitting the chain is easier.


----------



## Norm (8 Dec 2009)

Gotcha and yes, that's true. I was thinking of them on hub-geared or single-speed bikes, I didn't look too closely at that image.


----------



## Jonathan M (8 Dec 2009)

Norm said:


> Gotcha and yes, that's true. I was thinking of them on *hub-geared or single-speed bikes*, I didn't look too closely at that image.



Now that would work, but would a singlespeeder be seen dead on a raised stay bike?


----------



## alecstilleyedye (9 Dec 2009)

Mr Pig said:


> That's what I was wondering. Every time I see a bike that's radically different from the norm my first thought is to wonder if the manufacturer is trying a desperate gimmick to set themselves apart. I can't see any other logical reason for a frame like that.



nothing new in that; hetchins were doing that before the wwII.

the classic 'curly' hetchins was a reaction to the regulation at the time that pro cyclists were not to advertise the bike's manufacturer on the frame, so they made the frame distinctive enough to leave no doubt as to who made it.

marketing, in other words…


----------

