cotic-bikes

@KennyWatson: Good to know. Look forward to hearing from you when you're closer to the decision.

@Ben-P: Low BB can be a blessing and a curse. It's more stable in corners once you're in the corner, but it's harder to pull the bike back upright again. Low BB became one of those 'Things That Are Good (tm)" because it helps calm down the bike and keep you below the front axle on steep terrain, which when you have a short, steep bike you really want that! On a long 29er where the BB is a long way below the axles, the bike has so much intrinsic stability that a low BB potentially makes it too hard to move around, certainly to move it from edge to edge. You can balance the stability by keeping the BB a reasonable height and dial a little more liveliness back into the handling, because you're not relying on the low BB to keep the rider from going over the bars. There is also the issue of pedalling up climbs. We don't have much in the way of smooth climbs around here and it drive me nuts if I am constantly catching my pedals riding up rocky climbs. The RocketMAX has a 346mm static BB, but once you're on the bike you really wouldn't want it any lower in my opinion. Minimum measurement from BB centre to saddle rail at full pedalling height on a RocketMAX is 69cm. That will be give or take a cm or two depending on what gubbins is on the bottom of your seatpost. That number is based on an X Fusion Manic 150mm dropper. The frame insertion is about 220mm, again depending on actuation parts.

@ceecee: I'm 189cm or 6ft 3in in old money. I run a 35mm stem on an XL, and currently run 51mm offset Cane Creek HELM29 forks, but I've tested with 42mm Lyrics and 46mm X Fusion Trace36. I run flat pedals. My bars are current 785mm across the ends of the grips, with WTB Padloc grips (I love rolling my hands over the ends of the bar so the big pad of rubber on these feels great). The bars are rolled very slightly back from vertical on the rise section static, the bars are Cotic Calver bars which are 25mm rise, 780mm wide, 5 deg up, 9 deg back sweep. If you keep an eye on the Cotic channels in the next couple of weeks there will be a video coming out which I shot a lot of riding some pretty janky tech in Finale, and I did a bike check on the beach one morning too. I think that's got you covered! My take on fork offsets is that it's a personal preference, and the marketing budgets of other brands are making it a bigger thing that it actually is. As I said, I have tried the RocketMAX with 42mm, 46mm, and 51mm and they all handle fine. Slightly differently, but just fine. With my preferred bar width of 770mm across the grips I do prefer the slightly shorter offset, although I'll be honest I couldn't tell the difference between 42mm and 46mm. My bars are currently 785mm to get a similarly calm feel on the 51mm offset as it's more lively around the straight ahead position. The slightly more linear rate of response of the shorter offset works a little better with the narrower bar width in my opinion. Remember though, this is real Princess-and-the-pea stuff. It's my job to be sensitive to these things. I'd be very surprised if anyone getting a RocketMAX was anything other than really stoked on the handling so long as they had a fork they liked, set up nicely, plugged in the front.

My take on fork offsets is that it's a personal preference, and the marketing of other brands are making it a bigger thing that it actually is. I have tried the RocketMAX with 42mm (short Lyric), 46mm (X Fusion) and 51mm (my current Cane Creek HELM29) and they all handle fine. Slightly differently, but just fine. With my preferred bar width of 770mm across the grips I do prefer the slightly shorter offset, although I'll be honest I couldn't tell the difference between 42mm and 46mm. I have to use 785mm bars to get a similarly calm feel on the 51mm offset as it's more lively around the straight ahead position. The slightly more linear rate of response of the shorter offset works a little better with the narrower bar width. Remember though, this is real Princess-and-the-pea stuff. It's my job to be sensitive to these things. I'd be very surprised if anyone getting a RocketMAX was anything other than really stoked on the handling so long as they had a fork they liked, set up nicely, plugged in the front.

Definitely both 29. Slight lens distortion, plus those tyres are the latest G2 Series WTB. The 2.5" Vigilante front is a little taller and beefier than the 2.4" Judge on the rear.

Yup, just order via our website. It's frames and some parts only at the moment as the shipping on bikes gets a little too pricey for most people, although we're happy to quote. If you click on USA in the country chooser in the address section on the Order page it will automatically deduct UK sales tax and add shipping so you have an accurate price. Any questions, drop us a line any time.

It is possible to hydroform steel, but it's not a process that lends itself to the really really high strength steels we use. Our tubes are cold rolled into the oval shape for the top tube and pressure formed and swaged for the seatstays. Everything else is nice straight lines to keep weight off and efficiency high.

Not ridden Liver Damage yet, but it's epic on Repeat Offender, 3G, Loam Wolf, all of those.

@KennyWatson: Some interesting comparisons there. At your height you are absoultely right, you'd get on either a medium or a large so you can go for what you'd prefer. With the shorter seat tubes I put on the latest Longshot bikes, most people have the option to go for a couple of different sizes depending on your preference. As for the wheelbase length, I think people get a little too hung up on it. It's much, much more important to have the weight balanced between the wheels. Hence the chainstay length to balance the front centre. This bike (even in the XL size I ride) feels like you would expect a shorter wheelbase bike to feel, because when you are stood up, you are on the vertical turning axis of the bike. When a bike has a long front centre and really short rear end, the turning axis of the bike is in front of the riders centre of mass, which makes those bikes feel ponderous. The force feedback they give you is that something is moving around in front of you. That kinda 'wheelbarrow' feeling. That's what's given long bikes a bad name in my opinion. You can't just focus on one number then say it's rad. It's a whole system. The iteration I tried before the final geometry was settled was a degree steeper at the front and shorter front centre. It should have theoretically made it feel livelier in tight trails, and I'll be honest, I was a little concerned about customer reaction to the geometry I was leaning towards so I pulled it back a little. It felt awful. Like REALLY awful. The front end felt too tall and unconnected. It felt really light on the steering without enough feeback. I tried a bunch of different bars I spent a couple of weeks full puzzling - measuring, checking, rebuilding the previous prototype - trying to figure out how a bike with a 64.5deg head angle could feel so sketchy. It came down to the lower BB on that bike (which everyone thinks is good) and the shorter front centre (still roomy, but everyone thinks shorter is good for tighter trails) combined with the 160mm travel fork raising the stack and hence bar height combined to make it hard to weight the bike nicely. All bits of 'received wisdom' which combined to make a bike that looked great on paper not work at all. In the end I popped an angleset in it to go back towards where I was with the version before and it was transformed. Even on tight, bermed singletrack it felt MILES better. I could weight the front, loads of feel and feedback through the bars, tonnes of grip, I was in the middle of the bike again so it was moving around me instead of in front of me. That was the point I commited and went with what felt best to me, regardless of the numbers 'on paper'. And that's the bike we launched. Feel free to ask more questions. It's fun to get into the details. Cheers, Cy