Author Topic: Oz/5500 geometry (Read 7051 times)

Luke · « **on:** June 13, 2011, 11:37:19 pm »

Hello friends.
Yesterday I got my Scott Strike out for the first time in a year and took it for a hammer in the Esterel, where I normally ride my 5500.

I really can't imagine how I ever raced that bike now, it's so short and uncomfortable. OK it's light and stiff and whizzes up stuff really quite well, but the moment you point it slightly downhill it gets scary nervous. With the saddle dropped (it was the only way I could face some of my normal paths) it feels like a little BMX bike and jitters all over the place. The 80mm SID WC doesn't help I have to admit but hell I raced that on marathons - how?

So it got me thinking again about geometry, and how Proflex really really got it right. You just don't seem to find that cockpit and chainstay length elsewhere. I'm wondering if the new full 29ers have those lengths through lack of choice:
Fisher/Trek superfly 100
Cannondale scalpel 29er
Scott spark 29er

I'm sure I saw a pic of an OZ frame with dimensions somewhere here, but a search doesn't turn it up. Could someone point me in the right direction please. If they're not similar geometry I can rest, and not want them quite so much.
Budget wise it's terrifying, but my experience with alu bikes vs carbon means I cannot ride an alu bike with confidence. And seeing as I haven't actually BOUGHT a bike in 18 years I guess I could see my way to justifying a stiffer chassis. If it's not the same shape as my 5500 I'm not keen though.
Cheers
Luke

kiwi · « **Reply #1 on:** June 14, 2011, 02:13:14 am »

Quote from: Luke on June 13, 2011, 11:37:19 pm

Hello friends.
Yesterday I got my Scott Strike out for the first time in a year and took it for a hammer in the Esterel, where I normally ride my 5500.

I really can't imagine how I ever raced that bike now, it's so short and uncomfortable. OK it's light and stiff and whizzes up stuff really quite well, but the moment you point it slightly downhill it gets scary nervous. With the saddle dropped (it was the only way I could face some of my normal paths) it feels like a little BMX bike and jitters all over the place. The 80mm SID WC doesn't help I have to admit but hell I raced that on marathons - how?

So it got me thinking again about geometry, and how Proflex really really got it right. You just don't seem to find that cockpit and chainstay length elsewhere. I'm wondering if the new full 29ers have those lengths through lack of choice:
Fisher/Trek superfly 100
Cannondale scalpel 29er
Scott spark 29er

I'm sure I saw a pic of an OZ frame with dimensions somewhere here, but a search doesn't turn it up. Could someone point me in the right direction please. If they're not similar geometry I can rest, and not want them quite so much.
Budget wise it's terrifying, but my experience with alu bikes vs carbon means I cannot ride an alu bike with confidence. And seeing as I haven't actually BOUGHT a bike in 18 years I guess I could see my way to justifying a stiffer chassis. If it's not the same shape as my 5500 I'm not keen though.
Cheers
Luke

look here

Luke · « **Reply #2 on:** June 14, 2011, 02:39:19 am »

Yes I saw that, but either I'm blind or there really is no info on the actual top tobe length and all the other dimensions and angles I want to compare.
The component spec sheet ain't much good for that.

Old Proflexer · « **Reply #3 on:** June 14, 2011, 05:49:03 am »

yeah, i didn't see it either.

dave tweed used to have all the specs on his site but don't see them off hand on ours.

here's what I have tho' for a large:

Head angle: 70 degrees
Seat angle: 73 degrees
Top Tube length: 23.11" Medium Top Tube: 22.13"
Standover A: 30.79"
Chainstay length: 17.17
BB Height: 12.36"
Wheel Base: 43.15"
Frame: 2.85 pounds

Hope that helps -

maybe also check here:
http://idriders.com/proflex/tech/5500review1.jpg
http://www.bikesdetails.info/K2_Bike_ProFlex_4500C_1998.html

OP

Spokes · « **Reply #4 on:** June 14, 2011, 03:18:00 pm »

As far as I am aware the carbon frames are exactly the same geometry as the 4000 and 5000. Mine seem identical to my 4000 just lighter.

Chris

Luke · « **Reply #5 on:** June 14, 2011, 11:20:06 pm »

Quote from: Spokes on June 14, 2011, 03:18:00 pm

Mine seem identical to my 4000 just lighter.

Oh!
And there I was under the impression that Proflex never made anything HEAVIER than that thermoplastic full carbon frame!
14kg with middleburns, XT, hyperlites, flite, hope minis and a SID fork!!!

Actually Google rooted up another forum which had a link in it:

http://www.neebu.net/~khuon/cycling/bikes/K2/1999-OzM/ozm_geometry.html

Very worth while saving that and hosting it on our server.

kiwi · « **Reply #6 on:** June 15, 2011, 03:28:22 am »

well all i can say is you are al blind because this link is dave twedes page from a way back machine .The 4000 and 5000 are the same as the carbon bikes AFAIK
That link is the second linl from the previous posting

Old Proflexer · « **Reply #7 on:** June 16, 2011, 02:50:17 pm »

not necessarily blind my friend - probably just getting a little senile.
i clicked on dave's old site link and it didn't work but yours did.

anyway we can save the info on those pages to our site?
i'm not one of the 'powers that be'

OP

kiwi · « **Reply #8 on:** June 17, 2011, 12:31:32 am »

yes daves pages are gone.I dont know how it works but this is a "historical" view of his page.I dont know how or where its archived but here it is.I will pm dave to see if he can somehow get its own page(s) here

Spokes · « **Reply #9 on:** June 17, 2011, 02:17:00 pm »

Quote from: kiwi on June 15, 2011, 03:28:22 am

well all i can say is you are al blind because this link is dave twedes page from a way back machine .The 4000 and 5000 are the same as the carbon bikes AFAIK
That link is the second linl from the previous posting

Thats what I said didnt I. And what does AFAIK mean, it sounds like a sneeze.

Chris

Willie_B · « **Reply #10 on:** June 17, 2011, 02:42:05 pm »

AFAIK = as far as I know.

Colin · « **Reply #11 on:** July 04, 2011, 09:35:05 am »

Best I can do...........

K2 Bike OZ M
SIZE A B C D E F G H I J K
MD 22.13 562 17.17 436 24.88 632 42.01 1067 4.84 123 30.39 772 11.93 303 1.89 48 71.4 74.4 19.61 498
LG 23.11 587 17.17 436 25.87 657 42.99 1092 4.84 123 30.39 772 11.93 303 1.89 48 71.4 74.4 19.61 498

Col.

jazclrint · « **Reply #12 on:** September 27, 2011, 09:16:03 pm »

The Giant Anthem X has almost as steep a head tube angle, but you are not going to find a a top tube that short. The steering as been slowed down on bikes over the years, as well as top tubes lengthened, and stem length with wider bars. The wheel bases are all longer too. I think the reason the 29r numbers are similar is simply to speed up the steering in order to get the bike to handle decently. It's making me thing 650B wheels would work really well on my 5500. I am finding it really twitchy, but I am holding my opinion until I get shocks in there that are tuned for me and the bike.

Carbon_Angus · « **Reply #13 on:** October 03, 2011, 10:27:34 am »

you may want to try a hopey for the "twitchy"

jazclrint · « **Reply #14 on:** October 03, 2011, 09:09:46 pm »

What is a "hopey"?

News:

Menu

Picture Bit

Author Topic: Oz/5500 geometry (Read 7051 times)