Editor’s Note: “c_g” is back with a full report on the custom Mi-Tech Tyke 29″er with the Rohloff and Gates carbon Belt Drive system.
MI-TECH Tyke 29er RO EX -
Out of the Box and Riding Impressions: by “c_g”
The company Mi-Tech is not unknown to many Germans, outside Germany they are still fairly unknown (thus the site www.mi-tech.de is available only in German language). The company has existed for some 15 years by now (beginning with the name of COCCOON focusing on high end road and triathlon bikes) but only the last 5 years under the name of MI-TECH. The company is producing bikes one by one, doing mostly custom jobs, only recently have they gone to producing “standard” frames in small batches besides their custom offerings. They always been heavily involved in designing and building prototypes for other companies (many widely known brands have had their protos built by Mi-Tech), so be sure they have lots of experience in individual geometries.
An interesting thing, J. Militzer, the head of Mi-Tech told me was that starting this year 29″ers are requested like crazy (while they had been slow before) and up to Mid Year they had already built and sold over 70 29″er units from an average yearly production of about 450 to 500 bike frames (all sizes and types). No word on the percentage as the general sales at Mi-
Tech have been high this year anyway.
FRAME specifics:
My test bike comes out of such a “standard” run but the number of individual modifications kind of tells a different story:
-Internal cable routing
-Rigid fork specific geometry
-Split right seat stays for GATES Carbon Drive
-ROHLOFF OE1 drop out and cable guides for the Speedhub 500/14
-27.2 mm seat post (31.6 would be standard)
-White powder coat (these and many others can be added to your personal frame to create your desired configuration in a standard geometry or in a full custom geometry)
Should you be interested in a Mi-Tech bike, be sure to discuss your future bike with them as they will do anything for your bike, down to the smallest details – and all that is 100% German manufacture. Knowing that the asking price of € 699.- for the frame (without the extras) seems fully justified. A full custom geometry would sell for € 849.-.
I received the bike mostly built so I have no individual weights but the claimed weight of 1650 g for the frame (incl., and thick powder coat) sounds about right. The BUSHNELL EBB adds another 150- 160 g.
Here come some visual impressions of the bike:
Left:Front section: The massive heat tube holds the semi-integrated headset nicely creating a very low stack height: The brake cable enters the TT while the dual shifter cables
from the Rohloff Speedhub enter on both sides of the down tube. Right: The Rohloff shifter cables exit the down tube near the Bushnell EBB, and run in their housing to the external gearing box – as recommended by Rohloff.
Left: a, About 2/3 down the right seat stay you find the splitting device that is secured by 2 screws. Since the GATES Carbon Drive belt is not splittable like a chain this is necessary to enter the belt into the rear triangle. Right: A huge box section yoke creates the stiffest possible BB section while maintaining huge tire clearance and decent chain ring clearance. Can you say “MASSIVE” and “STIFF”? – the Tykes rear triangle is built to the maximum accuracy and stiffness; a absolute requirement to have the belt drive work flawlessly. Tire clearance is above standard as well.
The frames dimensions are as stated on their website for an 18” frame:
605 mm eff. TT,
480 mm ST, 110 mm HT,
71,5° head angle and 73° seat angle,
60 mm BB drop and fairly long chainstays at 450 mm.
Though not unusual in its dimensions the 29er Tyke had been a bike where I needed several attempts to get the seating position dialed in correctly – not the bikes fault but it was peculiar. In the end I felt best with a short 70-80 mm stem (or in my case a 100 mm stem run with the Jones H-bar) and a straight post. It was a bit of a hassle getting the brake lines through the TT and bled but the clean looks easily made up for that. Internal routing is a nice thing but not if you like to swap components much and in my case I decided to just leave the shifting routing on the bike when I ran the bike in SS mode with my AMERICAN CLASSIC wheels (thanks to UNITED Transmissions, Europe for providing me with the extra SS cog for
this). So consider carefully what type of rider you are.
BUILD SPECIFICS & RIDE IMPRESSIONS:
MI-TECH has been super helpful in putting this test bike together and made a huge effort to get it to me before their summer holidays. You can find a short run down on the bikes components here. Due to a temporary unavailability by GATES my rig had a 50 tooth “chainring” mounted (about equivalent in diameter to 44 standard chainrings) and the chain stay fit was very tight: below 0.5 mm. Despite limiting my climbing abilities, this set up gave me a good baseline for testing the frames stiffness. By looking I would have judged the bike unrideable but I was taught differently –despite my best efforts I only managed to create a tiny scratch in the powder coat from the “chainring”,that is how stiff the frame is near the BB. I unashamedly would say this is the stiffest BB section I have ever encountered in any fame I had tested so far.
The BUSHNELL EBB takes a bit of getting used to when adjusting (read the instructions here to understand its function) but it worked just fine on the Tyke. With a 115 tooth belt in the combination of 46 teeth front and 20 teeth rear, thats how I was running the Speedhub, the EBB was near its farthest position (2 or 4 oclock looking from the drive side). When running SS I could run the 46 tooth front and a 24 rear cog, without having to swap the belt. This time having the EBB near its closest position (9 oclock). Keep in mind that the tooth distance on the Carbon Drive is shorter so Id guess the BUSHNELLs capacity is somewhere between 3 to 4 teeth with a standard chain. No creaking, loosening or other negative traits to report on so far.
The test rig was run as is for the most part of the test – with modified cockpit and seating. The Tyke is the very first Alloy 29er I have ridden for a very long time and it comes as no surprise that coming from a long travel steel hard tail it took some time to re-adjust. At first I felt a bit beaten after my usual testing rounds from what I consider a super stiff frame. This sensation has faded with me (re-) adjusting but the bikes superior stiffness remains. Not only in the BB area but overall – this fame is built to be the most direct connection from you to the ground.
For one this is necessary for the long tern function of the belt drive (I will meet the GATES folks at EUROBIKE and discuss with them – so await some in depth coverage on the Carbon
Belt drive then) but the entire frame is as stiff as can be. Beware, this means super direct and unaltered propelling energy but also an unusually direct response from the ground conditions – once again I was happy for having a 29er underneath me with large volume SCHWALBE Nobby Nics. I also swapped the alloy seat post to a nicely compliant 3T carbon Post to get a bit of compliance ?; unfortunately the original ROHLOFF shifters don’t work with Carbon bars and so I resorted to Ti H-bars to give me a bit of compliance in the rough. The stiff DT-Swiss fork did add even more stiffness and directness to the ride – a combination I’d consider one of the stiffest I have ridden in a 29er – maybe not everyone’s shoe, but some will just love it.
The bike is an exceptional climber but not much of a playful bike. I rode it on all my usual trails and it rode nicely in any terrain but somehow I felt like standing climbing wasn’t the Tykes favorite. While in SS mode, pushing up the climbs I always felt like I was slightly working against the geometry; same for sprinting out of the saddle (despite its superior power transmission). Mind you I am not the most finessed SS rider so other riders experiences might differ. But when pushing up long slopes in a seated position and climbing steadily, the TYKE really shone. There was no end to its traction on steep or technical climbs and endo-ing was a thing unknown to this bike. Where others were swaying heavily the Tyke just paced though.
I have not taken the bike on long alpine tours yet (a good vacation is planned already ?) but Id guess this is where the bike would ride like few others. Downhills and technical sections were both bliss and curse: the extreme stiffness of the chassis made for super precise riding/steering but also a bit of an unforgiving ride. The bike felt very stable and sure footed, despite its directness, which sometimes required me to clear rough sections at a slower than usual pace. Technical downhills – when taken at the correct speed – were mastered easily with absolutely no tendency for twitchiness or wandering.
When asking the manufacturer about how they intended the Tyke to ride it was the touring and endurance riding that they pointed out as the strongest field for the Tyke and so far I
confirm this.
MID TERM IMPRESSIONS:
The Tyke 29er frame is a superbly executed frame built specifically for ROHLOFF and GATES CARBON drive – thus it features maximum precision and stiffness (only few frame builder are
capable to produce such frames) and carries some interesting touches. The combination of this frame and a stiff rigid fork might be a tad too direct for some but sure provides the most
precise ride imaginable (a supple seat post and seat are a must in my eyes). While not portraying much playfulness my test bike is an exceptional climber and confidence inspiring descender. But keep in mind that MI-TECH does make each frame to customer specifications so any ride characteristic can be realized.
The GATES Carbon Drive will be covered in more depth in an upcoming post. Just this much: When integrated into a bike of this caliber (and set up), it gets me very close to the dream of a (almost) service and maintenance free mountain bike. (Remember, I called this test series “SIMPLE but SOPHISTICATED and so far this title fits like a glove)
RIDE ON,
c_g
Nice report.
Man, early on in the article I was thinking about the chainstays and yoke, etc, and the stiffness built in for the belt drive system…the thought was “stiff like that = unyielding ride”.
You seem to agree there. That may be another unfortunate consequence of the ‘benefits’ of belt drive…getting it stiff enough at the BB/CS takes away some of the builders ability to keep the balance between ride quality and performance in…well…BALANCE!
grannygear
Good to see they are getting the stiff chainstay message. Good for the belt drive and good for power delivery.
I’m fed up of flexy frames being regarded as a good thing – the mythical “feel”. You can get plenty of give out of a 2.35 tyre at the appropriate pressure and if you want more, play around with your saddle rails.
@BMac
I disagree. Feel is not mythical at all. Obviously something that is too flexy, however vague that is…how DO you define ‘too’ flexy…is bad, compliance is something that cannot be dismissed, not if you want to have the bike feel at all alive. Speaking of a hardtail here, of course.
As a XC rider, there is a limit to what a tire can do for you. It can only be run so low (PSI) or be so big and fluffy and then you begin to affect the handling and performance in all kinds of other ways. Running a tire at speed across fast hardpack corners at 20 psi is terrifying where I live and there is no way the tire makers had that in mind when they made/tested it. So what do i do? Begin to compromise my tires ability to work as I know it needs to just to get a brick to ride like a spring again?
If 25-30 psi is the sweet spot, and is about right for this neck of the woods running tubeless, others run more pressure, then I do not need the bike frame design dictating another pressure.
It is not just about vertical compliance, it is about the bikes ability to dance that dance of ride quality, pedaling stiffness, and…well, feel…that makes it fun to ride for the mere mortal and challenges the designer/builder to get ‘right’.
What I could get fed up about is technology that may still not be ready for prime time in an SS/MTB application coming in and messing around with a good bike frames design potential. I am less interested in riding a ‘technology’ then I am a great bike.
grannygear
‘Flex’ is also an area where personal preference plays a big role, too. I like whippy steel frames. Doesn’t mean they’re for everyone. I had a Klein back in the early nineties, and I could hardly sell that thing fast enough.
A lot of German manufacturers seem to have a bit of stiffness fetish. Nothing wrong with that, but they won’t be selling any frames to me.
Thanks for the review.
Nice review on an interesting bike.
What happens when something goes wrong with internally routed cables? I imagine that’s rare, but surely you’ll need to change them out at some point if you’re really using the bike as intended. What’s the process like?
I agree with BMac in regard to the flexy frame thing. Humans don’t perceive the differences in material deflection among popular materials of the same size and length. We do, however, HEAR the differences in these materials. We associate a particular sound with some corresponding vibration frequency, and evaluate a particular frame’s ride quality based on this alone. When we alter things like tire SIZE, seatpost LENGTH and DIAMETER, stem LENGTH, handlebar WIDTH and DIAMETER, and as GMac alluded to; saddle rail length and clamping location, we do experience comfort differences.
If you at any point claim to be able to distinguish differences in vertical deflection among frames of identical material length, I recommend that you start test riding bikes with earplugs in.
Go Belt Drive!
@Delicious
You have to be kidding. I don’t even know how to respond to such prose. I guess I need to stop riding with the i-pod then.
The thing is this…for all this time, some of the best bike builders in the biz have been making fine bikes that are a joy to ride on trail. Some are alu, but a lot of them are steel and Ti. If we say that this otherwise fine bike is not up to par for the belt, that is fair enough as that was never required before. Or is it just sub-par performance that does not accept the belt and then, well that is different as sub par is sub par regardless.
But if a bike that in every other way is a fine performer, be it steel, alu, CF, or Ti, and it needs to be beefed up for the belt, then fine. I can see the need, but I am not convinced of the overall benefit.
Now, there is a lot of assuming going on here. The German test bike may have been built that stiff (like the old Klein alluded to earlier) REGARDLESS of the belt drive. Maybe it is just the way they want a bike to be and there are riders that like that sort of thing.
So IF this stiffness built into the frame resolves the belt drive issues of keeping it from skipping, etc, then cool. But, if not, then what? Now we have the equivalent of a concrete bike that still pops and skips and has limited gear range.
I remain skeptical, but maybe I am just tone deaf.
grannygear
I would like to see measurements of the vertical deflection of the triangulated steel or aluminium structure in a bicycle rear end.
Lateral deflection is another matter.
@BMac,
I googled that and all I found in a couple minutes was that the Scott ‘Gram’ hardtail deflects the rear tire ~5mm vertically with a 200kg load at the seat. Doesn’t sound like much, but I guarantee you could feel that deflection. Assuming you’re running big fluffy tires and rims that deflect 50mm, that’s a 10% additional reduction in load factor after a rear tire ‘hit’ compared to a fantasy frame that deflects none at all. I haven’t run the numbers, but I bet the rear end sees more load than the 200kg load case under normal riding situations.
Who knows what that means for any other bike, though. I also bet that structural frequencies make a huge difference, too, with a lower frequency (less stiff) frame having better comfort.
I don’t think that either number would be all that impressive for the rear tri. So I see your point. The frame has to be taken as a whole, something a good designer works with along with all the other factors of a bike frame. Tough job, most likely. For instance, my steel Jabber SS is stiiffer at the BB then the alu Rockhopper I have on test yet it rides much smoother overall, has stiffer wheels, and a fork that is not EVEN as good as the recon on the ‘Hopper.
So IF just getting to the point of the rating that Gates specs for stiffness is just a matter of swapping a driveside chainstay, then that may not even mean anything for ride quality. But if I was making a bike frame for a belt drive for the masses and I wanted to get that thing so if did not twist up at all, then I would likely overbuild a bit to make sure. I would bet others may feel the same way.
My point, I guess, is that there seems to be a fair amount of compromise here in many areas (not just frame twist) just to not have a chain. While many will make those compromises, I don’t see that ready for primetime…yet.
I am not a hater, but I am remaining a skeptic until proven otherwise.
Besides, I don’t want to jump c_g’s fine test into a belt drive flame-out. My point was more to what compromises in frame performance we are required to make for it and is that a good thing?
grannygear
@BMac: Actually, Cannondale, Specialized, the old Klein company, and others have done these deflection tests and have published numbers for seat stay deflection/rear triangle vertical deflection in the past and right up to today. If you want hard numbers generated by lab equipment, the numbers are out there. German magazines also do similar tests. I believe even Velo News had a bottom bracket deflection tester at one time as well.
The thing is, in very simple terms, if the structure of a bicycle doesn’t flex, then it isn’t fun to ride, nor, (according to tests done by Bicycle Quarterly), is it more efficient in the long haul for the rider. Flex, in the right quantity and direction, is a desirable thing in a bicycle.
When a frame is stiffer, than some of the accumulated flex of the whole is taken away, and I posit that this can be felt by most riders at the enthusiast level and above. Whether or not a rider likes this is a very subjective, and therefore very debatable subject, but to say that feeling this is a “mythical” thing, I do not at all agree with, nor do a lot of other cyclists. In fact, in some cases flex can be seen, so that would be what? A mirage? No. It is very real. (And yes, I am speaking of frames, not just components)
To the point here: The Mi-Tech frame was built to be stiff, and “c_g” confirms that they were successful in this by his ride testing. If that is good for you, then that is great. I wouldn’t bet that it will be a good thing for many other riders though.
Just my opinion.
As far as the belt part of it all. I think “c_g” will have some revealing comments when it comes time for his report. Stay tuned…………
I owned a Gary Fisher alum back in the early 1990′s & it beat me up, added a front Shox then a seat shox. Ah! much better. Now ride a Ti SS which rides much smother.
Would love a back to back test of SS, Niner, Spec, Can, GF, Felt, etc. 2 from each in different material’s, one could leave that upto them to pick Hopefully we have, Ti, Alu ,CF & Steel there. Sweet
Cheers
@GG and GT – awesome clinic on HT and general MTB engineering! Had definitely not thought of the consequence to the whole frame’s balance that designing the belt drive split would have. And I think I know better why the Superfly SS is so much better in tune for me as an individual rider than others SS’s I have demo’ed.
(sorry for my temporary absence from the web
)
MATT: I have received the bike pre-built and so only had to work with the brake hose for the rear. There I found a wire already inserted that I used as a guide for the hose. No biggie, really. The dual shifter cables were already in place.
Generally you can find two ways of internal routing – one running in a full length internal guide (here any repair and replacement is super simple but construction is more elaborate and the full length housing adds a bit of weight) and a INTAKE/OUTTAKE way, where you need to find the exit via a cable guide (not too complicated either if you install the guide cable before taking off the old housing or use the old housing as the guideline).
In the bike tested, cable replacement (on Rohloff) and changes (of the brake) are considered to be minimal and so the internal option is a clean and neat one. Overall if you are more the “tinkering” kind of rider/mechanic – then I´d go with external braze ons.
As in regard to how the MI-TECH Tyke feels I can confirm what my tester companions and some of you have already said:
). In the case of the MI–TECH Tyke there are two pieces that are among the stiffest available – the frame (as has been mentioned and commented many times above) AND the ROHLOFF rear wheel with Flows. Add a stiff rigid fork and I can assure you the differenece can be felt. Whether this suites your personal riding for better or worse is a personal decsion.
The flex (or compliance) of a bike is the sum of the flex in several components (seat post, bar, stem, wheels, frame, fork, tires, tire pressure…). Alter one or several of them and the feel of the bike will be altered as well. These things can be felt (by some riders more, some less
I agree that the extend of this stiffness can be modified by e.g a flexing seat post, wider tires and lower tire pressure and a softer bar/stem combo, but like GG already commented: only to some extend. I assume you will also ride your rough trails standing and suddenly the seat post / seat flex is taken out of the equation … leaving you with only the wheel and tire suspension (AND your body) to work with.
In regard to more details on how this ride charactersitic is inherent to MI-TECH or as to how it is purely attributed to the requirements of the GATEs Carbon belt drive – I will have to ask for some patience. I will meet the folks from MI-Tech and from GATES at Eurobike and discuss the issue in depth with both of them.
Ride ON,
c_g