Planet X Pickenflick

orangepip

Anyone know if Planet x are planning to make a road version of this? It's a cross specific frame I believe so not suitable to be built into a road bike but I reckon they would get a lot of custom...

cougie

I use my PX Uncle John on the road all of the time and its great. Fantastic clearance for mudguards so fine for winter.
Use slicks and you're sorted. Its a bit high - but it would be being cross and all - but handles really nicely.

ugo.santalucia

You can ride a cross bike as a road bike, there is virtually no drawback... you are probably looking at a couple of pounds extra weight once you have the road tyres on.
I have done century rides on my cross bike no probs

orangepip

my concern is really the gearing. Even though Planet X spec it as having 50-34 chainrings on the front, the picture clearly shows it having MTB chainrings.

Additionally, they released the frame a while ago and stated in the blurb that they'd changed the BB width (or something - can't quite remember) and that made it unsuitable for road gearing.

orangepip

in fact from the planet x website:

"Its an On-One, so its special. We use the wider standard of mountainbike (or road 135mm cranks) to make better use of the tyre clearance in the notoriously tight mud room in the back of the bike. By pulling the cranks out 2.5mm compared to a slim road crank, we get better mud room, better chainring clearance, more BB stiffness because of less chainstay ovalisation, better frame durability, and a win all round.
We designed this for a mountainbike drivetrain. We are running 42/28, with a 49.5mm chainline (between the middle rings). Weve also considered a 39/26 for lower speed pure offroad use. A road 46/36 or 50/34 will be too close to the frame and should not be used due to having a chainline 3-4mm narrower (which would take lots off the tyre clearance)."

cougie

Ah thats a bugger then. A pure cross bike it is.

trek_dan

I've just received the email about this and it did strike me that the gearing seems strange - way too low for road use and just a bit wrong for Cyclo X racing if your used to having a 34/36 small ring. Maybe they could equip it with a triple on special order?

orangepip

We've seen a number of threads about disc brakes on road bikes recently, and I reckon that if Planet X did have a road going version of this they would get a number of sales. Me included.

Monty Dog

I'd rather have the option of bigger clearances and the option to fit 'guards on this kind of bike that trying to make it road-specific by reducing clearances and lowering the ride height by a cm or so. As for gearing, if you need more than 50x11 then you need a take out a race licence (or learn to pedal faster). I doubt most people would notice the Q-factor increase of 5mm either - it's not as though MTB bottom brackets are hard to get. Rubbish sizing options though - the small has a relatively long virtual TT of 54cm.

ugo.santalucia

Get a Fugio, it rocks!

bendertherobot

The gearing of a cross bike isn't a big issue really, though the gearing of the Pickenflick is certainly marginal for road use.

For me, and I know Ugo will disagree, the attraction is the tough dirty bike. That means guards. It's a real shame that the XLS, Pickenflick and Fugio won't take a pair of SKS. The Fugio less so cos you have fall backs in that range. But the XLS, Dirty Disco etc would absolutely fly out the door with some mountings.

majormantra

trek_dan wrote:

I've just received the email about this and it did strike me that the gearing seems strange - way too low for road use and just a bit wrong for Cyclo X racing if your used to having a 34/36 small ring. Maybe they could equip it with a triple on special order?

Presumably for racing most would just run a 39t single front ring on this. It does seem weird though - the restriction will surely put off a lot of potential buyers.

orangepip

Monty Dog wrote:

I'd rather have the option of bigger clearances and the option to fit 'guards on this kind of bike that trying to make it road-specific by reducing clearances and lowering the ride height by a cm or so. As for gearing, if you need more than 50x11 then you need a take out a race licence (or learn to pedal faster). I doubt most people would notice the Q-factor increase of 5mm either - it's not as though MTB bottom brackets are hard to get. Rubbish sizing options though - the small has a relatively long virtual TT of 54cm.

That's the thing thoughl, Planet X seem to specifically say that they would not recommend anything bigger than a 42 at the front due to clearance issues.

ugo.santalucia

bendertherobot wrote:

For me, and I know Ugo will disagree, the attraction is the tough dirty bike. That means guards. It's a real shame that the XLS, Pickenflick and Fugio won't take a pair of SKS. The Fugio less so cos you have fall backs in that range. But the XLS, Dirty Disco etc would absolutely fly out the door with some mountings.

The thing is when you ride with guards you look 10 years older... and I mean you, not you on the bike... maybe you don't care, I do! 8)

bendertherobot

I'm already old.......

orangepip

Ugo,

Regarding the fugio, it appears to be a frame only build? How did you build yours up?

apreading

orangepip wrote:

in fact from the planet x website:

"Its an On-One, so its special. We use the wider standard of mountainbike (or road 135mm cranks) to make better use of the tyre clearance in the notoriously tight mud room in the back of the bike. By pulling the cranks out 2.5mm compared to a slim road crank, we get better mud room, better chainring clearance, more BB stiffness because of less chainstay ovalisation, better frame durability, and a win all round.
We designed this for a mountainbike drivetrain. We are running 42/28, with a 49.5mm chainline (between the middle rings). Weve also considered a 39/26 for lower speed pure offroad use. A road 46/36 or 50/34 will be too close to the frame and should not be used due to having a chainline 3-4mm narrower (which would take lots off the tyre clearance)."

I think that's just flannel, trying (and failing) to turn a design mistake into a positive. Many other manufacturers have managed this, with perfectly adequate clearances. I suspect the problem is the straight chainstays - many other seem to use concave, curved chainstays.

The problem seems not just to be the need for MTB width chainsets but also the limit to the chainring size you can use. Looks like the chainstay was just too close to the chainrings and the wider chainset reduces the problem to a just about workable level but still severely limits the flexibility.

I think Whyte use narrower axles on the rear to help with chainstay clearance - which is another design flaw, meaning that you have to use hard to find narrow disc hubs.

Boardman manage OK - plenty of clearance and standard MTB width disc hubs with standard road chainsets allowing bigger rings...

ugo.santalucia

orangepip wrote:

Ugo,

Regarding the fugio, it appears to be a frame only build? How did you build yours up?

Over the years I accumulated components and built a Frankenstein Croix de Fer... I then transferred all the components to the Fugio... except the front derailleur as the Fugio takes a top pull one.
Don't take mine as an example, it's a Shimagnolo setup, built to be reliable and low maintenance rather than light and racey

trek_dan

apreading wrote:

orangepip wrote:

in fact from the planet x website:

"Its an On-One, so its special. We use the wider standard of mountainbike (or road 135mm cranks) to make better use of the tyre clearance in the notoriously tight mud room in the back of the bike. By pulling the cranks out 2.5mm compared to a slim road crank, we get better mud room, better chainring clearance, more BB stiffness because of less chainstay ovalisation, better frame durability, and a win all round.
We designed this for a mountainbike drivetrain. We are running 42/28, with a 49.5mm chainline (between the middle rings). Weve also considered a 39/26 for lower speed pure offroad use. A road 46/36 or 50/34 will be too close to the frame and should not be used due to having a chainline 3-4mm narrower (which would take lots off the tyre clearance)."

I think that's just flannel, trying (and failing) to turn a design mistake into a positive. Many other manufacturers have managed this, with perfectly adequate clearances. I suspect the problem is the straight chainstays - many other seem to use concave, curved chainstays.

The problem seems not just to be the need for MTB width chainsets but also the limit to the chainring size you can use. Looks like the chainstay was just too close to the chainrings and the wider chainset reduces the problem to a just about workable level but still severely limits the flexibility.

I think you'd be right, the gearing is just wrong. I would have loved to be present at the Planet X boardroom meeting when whoever designed their new 'verstile, do-it-all' ti cross bike frame told them that they couldn't put a road compact chainset on..

joelsim

Just heard that they are altering the frame to accommodate a bigger chainset.

mattsccm

I had one until it was nicked. Just ordered another. Much to my surprise the 42x11 gear is surprisingly high. My way of calculating gives 103" which is fine. I did sometimes use an 11/25 cassette to get rid of the gaps in the cassette. Its nicer than a road cassette of say 12/28. The next one will have a 12/25 on it. Its rare that I spin out on a normal chainset and that's only on long easy downhills where you can freewheel at 30mph + which puts me into F****wit mode anyway. 42X11 is plenty.
Triple won't be an option unless you do your own build as SRAM isn't triple compatible.
Its rides beautifully and is by far the best value Ti I can find.
No guard eyes but then that's common on most road bikes. I just used plastic light mounts. Plenty of clearance of course.
The chainset issue is purely with whopping tyre. With my road tyres a road chainset still has masses of room.
On the STW forum Brant Richards hinted that a roady version might appear. Fair enough. This is a race bike in the same way that a Colnago Master is so why worry about add ons. Buy a Van Nicholas if you want guards etc.
Have a look at the Crossjunkie website for more info.

joelsim

It was Brant who said that they are amending the frame to allow any chainset. I'm really not bothered by mudguards or anything. Like the look of the bike and am tempted to keep the 35 tyres on for my commute, the crank was my only issue as 95% of its use will be on the road and I want to be able to the odd sportive here and there. Comfort, price, looks. Job done.

mattsccm

You won't regret it.Just hoping mine turns up for the HONC but its a bit marginal.

luv2ride

No! :shock: ...just ordered a Crosslight Pro 6 disc frame as I didn't fancy the current chainset or lack of guard mount option. Otherwise that Pickenflick was getting serious attention from me...wonder if they'll also incorporate mounts for guards? Would take a few sales off of Canyon if they did I reckon.

Monty Dog

It's pretty obvious that it's a design cock-up by P-X trying to give maximum tyre clearance and finding a 34 inner ring hits the chainstay. IME most CX gearing is too high for 'offroad' or adventure riding, ie. anything that involves soft mud and steep trails - I've ridden my CX bike along quite a few sections of the SW Coastpath in Cornwall and 34x29 isn't low enough to cope with steep, narrow paths and loose shale. My next CX bike will likely be a monstercross, with clearance for 2" tyres, run a 2x10 MTB chainset with 38x26 chainrings.