Mantis…

mkozaczek":2rafm2d6 said:
Judy

I'll be a monkey's uncle if that blue one is an 18"


Good point. The green one is a 16". I think the size is even embedded in the serial number. the blue one looks quite a bit more than 2" larger...doesn't it?
 
PeteC":g62054ft said:
frank---I assume you measured the length of the lower arm on the old one versus the new one? Much of a difference?
i took a quick "break" from work to receive the parcel and unpack it to have a look. i couldn't resist. :D i'll be doing an in-depth analysis of the two later this evening if time permits. ;)

mkozaczek":g62054ft said:
Judy

I'll be a monkey's uncle if that blue one is an 18"
again, as above, i'll reconfirm later. but you're right, it looks MUCH larger. :? i THINK it was advertised as 18"? regardless i didn't buy it to ride it, strictly as a donor, so no skin off my back if even bigger than initially thought. :p
 
okay original advert had:
Medium 18 Serial C202437
so advertised as medium 18" but i guess it's a 20" from the serial number, is that correct???

just to add, from quickly holding up the swing arm pieces to compare earlier, upper and lower looked the same length between the two frames.
 
Yep. And the 'C' denotes that it's a 'Cunningham' Mantis and not a 'Redline' Mantis---which I think most people will think is a good thing. Can't remember where I read that, but I learned it from lord google at one point.

By my math, the actual C-T on your blue frame is a tad over 22". But like you said above, it doesn't really matter. As long as the lower arms are the same length, you're golden.
 
so had a better look and i think the rear triangle are practically identical, with some slight tolerance variance due to workmanship.

notice the gusset on the lower swing arm is shorter from the larger frame. :? canti studs are slightly off on the upper swing arm.

looking at the main front triangle, you see that the larger frame shock mount is higher, obviously due to the higher top tube, but also farther back. while the smaller frame the mount is more forward. so it seems the mounting point would be on the same arc in relationship to the rear drop out pivot point, just one having a larger radius angle than the other. hence why the rear swing arms are of the same lengths.

curious if that would affect how the suspension performs and if it changes any ride characteristics.
 

Attachments

  • DSC05927.JPG
    DSC05927.JPG
    54 KB · Views: 372
  • DSC05926.JPG
    DSC05926.JPG
    99 KB · Views: 372
  • DSC05924.JPG
    DSC05924.JPG
    67.7 KB · Views: 372
  • DSC05923.JPG
    DSC05923.JPG
    72.5 KB · Views: 371
  • DSC05920.JPG
    DSC05920.JPG
    93.1 KB · Views: 372
yeah, shame the blue one wasn't my size. i could have just built that up and be done with it! :LOL:

anyway, gonna build her up and give her a whirl before going down the path of strip and repaint. ;)

just need to source an appropriate 1" suspension fork. :?
 
the ol' fleaBay is a always a good source for 1" forks, of course. Yours came with a 1" Mag21 SL Ti, FYI. Sold it before you acquired the frame, as I recall. If you find one in the US and the seller doesn't want to ship to Canada, I'm happy to be the middle man again.
 
PeteC":1i6hl6rl said:
Yep. And the 'C' denotes that it's a 'Cunningham' Mantis and not a 'Redline' Mantis---which I think most people will think is a good thing. Can't remember where I read that, but I learned it from lord google at one point.

C would be for Control Tech

Very very few Pro Floaters were built completely in house.

Any Pro Floaters you've seen have been 'non- R.Cunningham' built.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top