Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Carver 96'er?

  1. #1
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,335

    Carver 96'er?

    Anyone catch the write up of this hybrid in the latest MBA? Some of you might have tried out something similar to this route when first venturing into ninerhood (I've seen the 26/24 combo's before). Seems like a decent setup since I'd be on a small frame and might not feel so cramped and with the versatility of moving the EBB around for running SS.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Titus/On-One/Planet X
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,802
    Review at the end of the pdf of this page:-

    http://www.on-one.co.uk/index.php?mo...iew&ANN_id=159
    --
    brant
    http://www.shedfire.com
    Designing for Titus USA, On-One and Planet X.

  3. #3
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,005
    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47
    Seems like a decent setup since I'd be on a small frame and might not feel so cramped and with the versatility of moving the EBB around for running SS.
    Thoughts?
    Explain to me how a 96'er doesn't "cramp" a man over a fullbred 29"er?

    Maybe try a search on the bike, the opinions are sortof mixed to say the least. Brant's link is a good one.

  4. #4
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,335

    Cramped?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    Explain to me how a 96'er doesn't "cramp" a man over a fullbred 29"er?

    Maybe try a search on the bike, the opinions are sortof mixed to say the least. Brant's link is a good one.
    Maybe I should have said crammed!

    Hey Cloxxi, only meaning that from what sml 29" frames I've seen built, the geometry seems abit contorted to keep the wheelbase/tt proportions intact. This frame, in the MBA write up anyway, seemed to balance both characturistics of a quicker/nimble rear end & better rolling prowess up front. As I could'nt get any geo specs from their site to compare wheelbases' on other makes comparable sizes, it might be just a visual illusion of the 96'er being a little more stretched out. And you're right, Brant's link was very informative.
    Just gathering info, thanks!

    BTW, curious if you're pro 9'r?

    JMac

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,521
    I think the size issue that people are concerned with is the front end of the 29er since it creates a high head tube and the front wheel can cause potential toe overlap.
    Although I have never ridden a 96er I would think that if the manufacturer gets the front end figured out the rear end should not be that big of deal. Even the review wished that it had a 29er front and rear. There are benefits of a 26 inch wheel for strength and gearing and tire selection but I don't think they are that big of issue.

  6. #6
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,005
    I call BS on the "short" rear end of a 29/26 bike unless it's got significantly shorter chainstays than the 425-435mm seen on practicall all 26" hardtail ranging from XS to XXL. They all get the same langth, when shorter is well possible. Look, 29" adds 1.25" radius (31.5mm), buth Fisher 29"ers have 440mm chainstays. Hardly longer than with 26" hardtails, and I wonder how many riders would be able to guess their bike's chainstaylength within 5mm from riding them, would a couple otherwise identical frames be built up for them. Chainstays are necessary, but short is not better to a degree that everyone does them as short as possible. If an 5' rider is 425mm chainstays, do the math for a 6' rider and find a single 29" bike that uses them that long. Good luck.

    All the geometry problems caused by short-offset 29" suspension forks are not affected by the use of a smaller rear wheel. The front is where the problems arise, not the rear. The rear wheel is where most of the 29's advantages come from.

    I don't recall what length Pace fork was used on the Carver review in WMB mag, but take into account that in any case it was shorter and with more offset than, say, a Reba. On paper the Carver (71 HTA/39mm offset) should handle like a truck compared to the On-One (72/47mm).

    26" wheels are stronger yes, if you use the same extrusion, spokes, and spoke count. Throw in a hefty 20g(.7oz) worth of spokes (4, 12.5% for 36 vs 32, for 9.4% diameter increase) and it will take very precise lab testing to verify whether 26" indeed is still "best".

    Even my homebuilt 29/26 with rigid fork (the rock-hard Dimension) felt very comfort-unbalanced. Rear felt like a shopping cart, and the front like, well, a sweet 29" bike. Carvers combine "all" the disadvantages of 29" (over half the extra weight, harder fit) with "non" of the advantages (traction, comfort, rolling resistance).
    My verdict : smart thing to put a 29" front in your 29" bike with a rigid fork, it's better. Carver : perfect bike, wrong wheel concept, rear should have been big. They would have sold multifold that way. But buy one anyway, in 20 years it will be a rare retro and worth a lot. Carver combines a really cool brand name (the boss' actual name), cool tubing, interesting fit/geometry charts, nice graphics, good price, with a flawed concept that was tried before back when 26" was all that (24" rear wheels).

  7. #7
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,335

    Woah, TMI......

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I call BS on the "short" rear end of a 29/26 bike unless it's got significantly shorter chainstays than the 425-435mm seen on practicall all 26" hardtail ranging from XS to XXL. They all get the same langth, when shorter is well possible. Look, 29" adds 1.25" radius (31.5mm), buth Fisher 29"ers have 440mm chainstays. Hardly longer than with 26" hardtails, and I wonder how many riders would be able to guess their bike's chainstaylength within 5mm from riding them, would a couple otherwise identical frames be built up for them. Chainstays are necessary, but short is not better to a degree that everyone does them as short as possible. If an 5' rider is 425mm chainstays, do the math for a 6' rider and find a single 29" bike that uses them that long. Good luck.

    All the geometry problems caused by short-offset 29" suspension forks are not affected by the use of a smaller rear wheel. The front is where the problems arise, not the rear. The rear wheel is where most of the 29's advantages come from.

    I don't recall what length Pace fork was used on the Carver review in WMB mag, but take into account that in any case it was shorter and with more offset than, say, a Reba. On paper the Carver (71 HTA/39mm offset) should handle like a truck compared to the On-One (72/47mm).

    26" wheels are stronger yes, if you use the same extrusion, spokes, and spoke count. Throw in a hefty 20g(.7oz) worth of spokes (4, 12.5% for 36 vs 32, for 9.4% diameter increase) and it will take very precise lab testing to verify whether 26" indeed is still "best".

    Even my homebuilt 29/26 with rigid fork (the rock-hard Dimension) felt very comfort-unbalanced. Rear felt like a shopping cart, and the front like, well, a sweet 29" bike. Carvers combine "all" the disadvantages of 29" (over half the extra weight, harder fit) with "non" of the advantages (traction, comfort, rolling resistance).
    My verdict : smart thing to put a 29" front in your 29" bike with a rigid fork, it's better. Carver : perfect bike, wrong wheel concept, rear should have been big. They would have sold multifold that way. But buy one anyway, in 20 years it will be a rare retro and worth a lot. Carver combines a really cool brand name (the boss' actual name), cool tubing, interesting fit/geometry charts, nice graphics, good price, with a flawed concept that was tried before back when 26" was all that (24" rear wheels).
    .....for me, but Thanx!
    So, what direction would one recommend a 5'-6" rider to look at as far as a full 29'er? Like I said the bikes I've seen in my size, though few & far between , seem to have the frame wedged between the larger tyres including some obvious toe overlap. I had this prob on a 50cm roadie which I got rid of & wouldn't think it worth "dealing with" on some tecky sections in the dirt. I thought maybe rotating the EBB might add some clearence, no?

    J

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe Sausagehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47
    BTW, curious if you're pro 9'r?

    Asking Cloxxki if he's pro-29er is liking asking Billy Graham if he's pro-God.

    Interestingly, I saw a guy today on a 29er who might have been 5'5" at the most, and even though his frame looked as though it fit him just fine, he looked totally weird on it -- like if he were standing next to his bike, the wheels would have come up to his crotch. LOTS of slope in the downtube, and it must have been a 15" frame. I'm not knocking it or him, mind you -- he was happy as a clam and riding along doing just fine, thankyouverymuch -- but it almost looked like a cartoon bike, so odd was the juxtapostion of his diminutive stature and those big wheels. I guess I'm used to seeing taller fellows on them and this was a first. He certainly made an impression!

  9. #9
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,335

    Yea, hope I didn't push any buttons!

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sausagehead
    Asking Cloxxki if he's pro-29er is liking asking Billy Graham if he's pro-God. !
    Heh......my bad. But he doesn't list his bikes, soooo........

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sausagehead
    Interestingly, I saw a guy today on a 29er who might have been 5'5" at the most, and even though his frame looked as though it fit him just fine, he looked totally weird on it!
    Zactly Joe! You know how we SS'ers get those "why would you not want to have gears" looks as it is from some fellow trail peeps, can only imagine the comments if I was riding a circus bike! I noticed francois has recently built/tested a "Niner" and inquired about size, us being similar in stature and all........

  10. #10
    Bored
    Reputation: bigwheelboy_490's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,957

    Enough.

    Go Out And Ride Your Bikes. Stop The Squabbling.
    MTBR is serious stuff.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,521
    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47
    .....for me, but Thanx!
    So, what direction would one recommend a 5'-6" rider to look at as far as a full 29'er? Like I said the bikes I've seen in my size, though few & far between , seem to have the frame wedged between the larger tyres including some obvious toe overlap. I had this prob on a 50cm roadie which I got rid of & wouldn't think it worth "dealing with" on some tecky sections in the dirt. I thought maybe rotating the EBB might add some clearence, no?

    J
    Hey we are about the same size. I went the cheap route and got a medium Voodoo Dambala. No foot strike by a long shot although I got little stumps and use 165 cranks although even 175s would probably clear easily. Need a short negative rise stem. It stretches me out but I like that vs. my 26ers. Ideal size for me? Probably not, but I am making it work and I really like it. I like the dropouts on it. Choice of SS or geared but you won't catch me on a SS unless they remove the hills from where I live. Disc brake or v-brakes and you can unbolt the v mounts. Fits two water bottles (hurray cause I hate wearing camel backs) and it has rear rack mounts except for the seat stay area. I have a on one rigid fork soon to be replaced by a REBA. On one fork has v and disc mounts and if you are going rigid it is a nice choice and not pricey at all.
    I looked at the waltworks page and he is making some really little ones. Pictures are on his web page under complete bikes.
    I am sure there are others but I don't know the 29er market that well.
    This next week a new suspension seatpost, front suspension fork, shorty negative rise stem and a front disc brake will be added. I will post pics when it is done.

  12. #12
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,335

    Missing something?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigwheelboy_490
    Go Out And Ride Your Bikes. Stop The Squabbling.
    I think Cloxxi is merely showing his passion. I, on the other hand, am showing genuine interest! Why don't you go practice what you're preaching! AS for me, it's 8PM, have my kids flu bug, oh and my nite light batteries aren't charged....heh!

  13. #13
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    8,335

    Do that

    Quote Originally Posted by richwolf
    I will post pics when it is done.
    Look forward to the pix.

  14. #14
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sausagehead
    ...Interestingly, I saw a guy today on a 29er who might have been 5'5" at the most, and even though his frame looked as though it fit him just fine, he looked totally weird on it -- like if he were standing next to his bike, the wheels would have come up to his crotch. LOTS of slope in the downtube, and it must have been a 15" frame. I'm not knocking it or him, mind you -- he was happy as a clam and riding along doing just fine, thankyouverymuch -- but it almost looked like a cartoon bike, so odd was the juxtapostion of his diminutive stature and those big wheels. I guess I'm used to seeing taller fellows on them and this was a first. He certainly made an impression!
    As long as the bike fits the rider and it handles well it does not matter how it looks. "looking strange" is more about what you are use to seeing than it being non-functional.

    I know a guy who is 5'4" and rides a small Fisher with no complaints at all.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  15. #15
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,005
    Using inseam as a rule of thumb to get ideal wheelsize isn't a bad one. If you can stand over it comfortably, a bike can be made to fit you.
    Look how youngster do in MTB races. I mean the kind in their 1st or 2nd year of 26"ers. Really tiny kids handling a bike with ease, tough the cheap bike weighs about half of their body. The equivalent of me riding a 90lb 36"er. You'd be surprised how few of those kids can actually stand over their wheels. To me they look fine, as long as dad didn't spec a long&high stem (most do, kids look at the trail from under their handlebars, so sad...).

  16. #16
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sausagehead
    Interestingly, I saw a guy today on a 29er who might have been 5'5" at the most, and even though his frame looked as though it fit him just fine, he looked totally weird on it -- like if he were standing next to his bike, the wheels would have come up to his crotch. LOTS of slope in the downtube, and it must have been a 15" frame. I'm not knocking it or him, mind you -- he was happy as a clam and riding along doing just fine, thankyouverymuch -- but it almost looked like a cartoon bike, so odd was the juxtapostion of his diminutive stature and those big wheels. I guess I'm used to seeing taller fellows on them and this was a first. He certainly made an impression!
    What about the minions of 5'2" - 5'9" riders that ride road bikes on the 700c wheels? Cartoonish?

    Here's my wife who happens to be 5'3" on her Trek 820 (26" wheeled bike in the vineyards) as well as on her first 29"er - a Willits New Sheriff. She now is riding a Fisher 292, but I don't think I have any pictures of that yet for some reason.

    Seems to fit proportion wise in terms of looks whether the wheels are 26" or 700c.

    BB
    Attached Images Attached Images
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  17. #17
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,870
    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47
    can only imagine the comments if I was riding a circus bike!
    On the otherhand, if we look at the tall riders, we get the opposite "look". Being the shortest member of my biological family at 6'3", I look out of proportion on a 29"er as you can see below on my size XL Sugar 293. Looks like I'm riding kiddy wheels again.

    You should see me on 26" wheels for out of proportion looks....

    BB
    Attached Images Attached Images
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  18. #18
    indigosky
    Guest
    My GF is 5'-4" and rides a Soma Juice 29er with no toe overlap. She loves it.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joe Sausagehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    751

    Let's drop our defenses a bit, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown
    What about the minions of 5'2" - 5'9" riders that ride road bikes on the 700c wheels? Cartoonish?

    Whoah, there folks --- let's not confuse observation with criticism. As I said, the frame fit the guy, and he was riding along just fine. By means of explanation, I also said that I'm simply used to seeing taller people on 29ers, and so this first glimpse left an impression. Must every post here be scrutinized for possible "anti-29er" tone and its author lambasted if any is detected? Let's stop making it our job to be so easily offended, okay? I both own and like my 29er.

    To answer your question, Bruce, 700c-wheeled bikes seem to retain the conventional frame shape (or illusion of same), while 29ers have much more radically-sloped top tubes. To my eyes, this makes their frames seem small, compared to the wheel size. Also, the 29er tire, being so much fatter than a 700 x 23, really draws attention to itself, giving it the illusion that it's even bigger. The rider I saw looked as though he was being swallowed by his bike and it was funny to me.

    Sue me for having a sense of humor.

  20. #20
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,074

    Perhaps BB was "just making an observation" too?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sausagehead
    Whoah, there folks --- let's not confuse observation with criticism. As I said, the frame fit the guy, and he was riding along just fine. By means of explanation, I also said that I'm simply used to seeing taller people on 29ers, and so this first glimpse left an impression. Must every post here be scrutinized for possible "anti-29er" tone and its author lambasted if any is detected? Let's stop making it our job to be so easily offended, okay? I both own and like my 29er.

    To answer your question, Bruce, 700c-wheeled bikes seem to retain the conventional frame shape (or illusion of same), while 29ers have much more radically-sloped top tubes. To my eyes, this makes their frames seem small, compared to the wheel size. Also, the 29er tire, being so much fatter than a 700 x 23, really draws attention to itself, giving it the illusion that it's even bigger. The rider I saw looked as though he was being swallowed by his bike and it was funny to me.

    Sue me for having a sense of humor.
    Anyway.. The massively sloping top tubes wouldn't be necessary if the bikes were dedicated rigid steeds, like road bikes. Then they might not appear so.....well, cartoonish,
    ( to keep things consistent here).

    That same observation is made by several of the customers of the shop I work at when they are looking at 700c hybrid bikes and 26 inch wheeled comfort rigs, which both feature radically sloping top tubes. It's actually quite a common thing with modern bikes. Even road bikes have taken up with the sloping top tube. Check out a 15" hybrid bike with front suspension next time you find yourself in a shop. Seem similar to your small 29"er? I think you'll find that it is.

  21. #21
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sausagehead
    By means of explanation, I also said that I'm simply used to seeing taller people on 29ers, and so this first glimpse left an impression. Must every post here be scrutinized for possible "anti-29er" tone and its author lambasted if any is detected? Let's stop making it our job to be so easily offended, okay?
    Not easily offended here and not taken as "anti-29"er" tone by any stretch of the imagination.

    Just supporting the "less tall" riders as well since I have 2 in my household that are enjoying the big wheels. With the recent Cunningham comments aimed at the shorter rider on the big wheels as well as the thread about riders in the 5'2" - 5'9" posting their rigs and heights, I can understand how posting "tones" might be scrutinized. Not sure my post was any sort of a lambast at you, but rather a question as well as some pix showing a 5'3" rider on a 26" wheeled bike and a 29" wheeled bike.

    I guess if it was the first "less tall" person you've seen on the 700c offroad platform, then it obviously struck you as odd because he was your "first" sighting and the illusion was what it was. I just figured you'd seen plenty of "less tall" roadies on 700c bikes over the years, or young kids on 26" wheeled bikes riding around the neighborhood. I'm probably tainted after all these years with the plethora of people (actually majority of people) in Europe tooling around on town on hybrids and trekking bikes based on the 700c wheel size. After you see all shapes and sizes riding these bikes day in and day out for 12 years in a major European city - nobody looks out of proportion any more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sausagehead
    To answer your question, Bruce, 700c-wheeled bikes seem to retain the conventional frame shape (or illusion of same), while 29ers have much more radically-sloped top tubes. To my eyes, this makes their frames seem small, compared to the wheel size. Also, the 29er tire, being so much fatter than a 700 x 23, really draws attention to itself, giving it the illusion that it's even bigger. The rider I saw looked as though he was being swallowed by his bike and it was funny to me.

    Sue me for having a sense of humor.
    No lawsuit needed. Understood. Sloping top tubes in the XS and Small size frames do draw attention with the big wheels.

    Even though I've seen many at this point, I still get a smile and chuckle when I meet a unicyclist out on the singletrack.

    BB

    Two more pictures: A couple of the "out of shape" college studentsI teach on size small 29"ers (Willits and a Fisher 292) as the group road the Mickelson Trail in the Black Hills last May. Both girls are in the 5'4" - 5'6" range. And my wife descending a trail on her Fisher 292 (size small)...
    Attached Images Attached Images
    The 14 warmest years have all occurred in the 16 years since 1997.

  22. #22
    MaineMud
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    118

    Whoa there, pardner...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cloxxki
    I call BS on the "short" rear end of a 29/26 bike unless it's got significantly shorter chainstays than the 425-435mm seen on practicall all 26" hardtail ranging from XS to XXL. They all get the same langth, when shorter is well possible. Look, 29" adds 1.25" radius (31.5mm), buth Fisher 29"ers have 440mm chainstays. Hardly longer than with 26" hardtails, and I wonder how many riders would be able to guess their bike's chainstaylength within 5mm from riding them, would a couple otherwise identical frames be built up for them. Chainstays are necessary, but short is not better to a degree that everyone does them as short as possible. If an 5' rider is 425mm chainstays, do the math for a 6' rider and find a single 29" bike that uses them that long. Good luck.

    All the geometry problems caused by short-offset 29" suspension forks are not affected by the use of a smaller rear wheel. The front is where the problems arise, not the rear. The rear wheel is where most of the 29's advantages come from.

    I don't recall what length Pace fork was used on the Carver review in WMB mag, but take into account that in any case it was shorter and with more offset than, say, a Reba. On paper the Carver (71 HTA/39mm offset) should handle like a truck compared to the On-One (72/47mm).

    26" wheels are stronger yes, if you use the same extrusion, spokes, and spoke count. Throw in a hefty 20g(.7oz) worth of spokes (4, 12.5% for 36 vs 32, for 9.4% diameter increase) and it will take very precise lab testing to verify whether 26" indeed is still "best".

    Even my homebuilt 29/26 with rigid fork (the rock-hard Dimension) felt very comfort-unbalanced. Rear felt like a shopping cart, and the front like, well, a sweet 29" bike. Carvers combine "all" the disadvantages of 29" (over half the extra weight, harder fit) with "non" of the advantages (traction, comfort, rolling resistance).
    My verdict : smart thing to put a 29" front in your 29" bike with a rigid fork, it's better. Carver : perfect bike, wrong wheel concept, rear should have been big. They would have sold multifold that way. But buy one anyway, in 20 years it will be a rare retro and worth a lot. Carver combines a really cool brand name (the boss' actual name), cool tubing, interesting fit/geometry charts, nice graphics, good price, with a flawed concept that was tried before back when 26" was all that (24" rear wheels).
    It sounds like you've got it all thought out... on paper at least!

    Anyway, we've almost sold through our second batch, and so far, everyone loves them...

    IT'S A BIG WORLD.. RIDE ON IT. (Kudos to DirtRag for that one....)

    Best,

    Davis Carver

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    233
    I am actually very curious about the Carver. I think it's bold of them to offer such a unique product. It's good to see Dirt and MB Action cover it.

    I was tempting into getting one, but I decided to go full on 29er w/ an Inbred (and I love steel frames).

    I think if the idea was bad, Travis Brown wouldn't be racing on his 29/26 combo.

    Inbred. Steel is Real.

  24. #24
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,005
    Well done Davis, everyone riding a new mountainbike is a soul won!

    Maybe this forum is a desert island with it's own course of evolution, but at least on here you'd have had quite a few extra customers with a bike that cool looking with equal sized wheels. Most of use don't ride in Maine ;-)
    If you're selling so well, how about trying a small run of L and XL 29/29 bikes? Or even just a couple prototypes to let the interested and press test the advantages you say the 26" rear wheel holds. If you'd decide to offer them, you'd have a big supporter in me! :-)

    Good for you selling what you believe in, and finding customers for it. Most of use have the same dream and never get that far. It's just my opinion you're pretty much saying "no" to money by not making full-on 29"ers. Hardly anyone seems able to keep those in stock very well, and not all of them as as appealing looking/priced as your bikes.
    But then, you're leaving room someone else to follow his dream and fill the gap you're leaving :-)

    All the best to you too,

    J

  25. #25
    Recovering couch patato
    Reputation: Cloxxki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,005
    Quote Originally Posted by holycromoly
    I think if the idea was bad, Travis Brown wouldn't be racing on his 29/26 combo.

    In the 2005 Singlespeed Worlds he did not win the bike race on it, that went to Creepyfriendly on a "plain" Fisher Rig with a rigid KM fork (120mm less cush, on that rock garden PA course...).
    Whether it's a good idea in in the long run may only be determined if Travis keeps riding bikes like that for a couple years to come :-) I'm sure it's a fun idea though, an odd wheelsized custom alu long travel pink hardtail, ready just in time for the SS Worlds...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •