Robert Reisinger's dashboard

Yes, the DNA was a redesign, but not by a MC employee, but by a clever subcontractor designer that did frame designs for Santa Cruz bikes that Kinesis hired to do the work. I liked some of the new design features and some of them scared me as to the strength of the new design. Monocoque structures can be very sensitive to loading and small changes of stress concentrations that causes failures... Not a bad start, but not a home-run either in my book. RR. – Robert Reisinger, on September 06, 2009 07:40

Yes, a very early model... looks like a second year run of frames or a bit older, 1993 to 1995 would be my guess. It has the first design subframe without the indentations in the arms, the wide mount shock mount on the mainframe and the in-house MC shock "aftershock" and original pivot bearings with the journal bearings... as well, one of the lighter frames made and the sheet aluminum used in the early years was thinner in a few places.

RR.

Ok, a little late to this post, but Eric makes a good point... the original SA was designed with 2" travel front and rear, but as travel grew so did the acceptable BB heights over the years and the SA's original frame was modified to provide more travel with a higher BB too. However, as it got higher, it became more of a design issue that we addressed in different ways over the years, however a new re-design of the frame was always on the books to do but never found the time. That being said, as components changed too, with smaller chain rings, it made the problems of performance even worse, so we started to incorporate the changes into the new frames.

The SA, in my opinion, needs a re-design...