Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31

    Rigid fork for G2 geometry 29er

    I have done some looking around on here and through yahoo and google searches looking for a rigid fork option for my 08 Cobia. The only thing I could find that seemed hopeful was a write up on twentynineinches . com from early in 08 that mentioned Bontrager might come out with a G2 29er version of their switchblade fork. After visiting the Bontrager site I saw a 29er version of the fork but no mention of offset for G2 geo.

    I really don't understand all the numbers and set up that goes into the G2 geo but I do like how it rides compared to other bikes I have owned so I want to keep it in tact. After doing some mtb trails in the area on my cross bike I think that a lighter rigid fork to replace the stock Tora might be suitable for the riding I do and a way to shave a little weight.

    Anyone have any suggestions?? (and preferably a economical one )

    Thanks

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,598

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Thanks. I was searching G2, rigid and cobia. Guess looking for other fisher models would have made sense.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    22
    Directly from www.FisherBikes.com
    "Q. Do I need a G2 fork on a "new" G2 bike?

    A. While Fisher's new G2 offset forks are redefining the way that mountain bikes handle on the trail and elevating off-road performance to a new level, a G2 fork is not required for the new model Fisher frames. For example, if you were to compare the head tube angles of the "old" Fisher Cake model and the "new" G2 Fisher HiFi, they are as follows:
    Cake = 69.5 degree
    HiFi = 69.7 degree
    Those angles are virtually identical; what this means to a Fisher riders is that if they are replacing their Cake frame with that of the new HiFi, they will get the same handling characteristics that they have always had with their Cake on their new HiFi by using the non-G2 fork from their Cake on their new HiFi. They will also get the added bonus of a much lighter chassis, Pressed Cartridge Pivots, and updated rear suspension.

    This principle also applies to our G2 29er hard-tail and G2 29er single-speed riders. By using a traditional 38mm offset fork, you will achieve more traditional handling characteristics as were found in the original Genesis 29" hard tails. Additionally, many riders (especially single-speeders) prefer to opt for a rigid front fork instead of the suspension fork that the bikes are equipped with from the shop. There are currently no G2 offset rigid forks on the market. If you decide to use the Bontrager Switchblade, with its 465mm axle to race, you will achieve a 70.3 (on small and medium) 70.6 (on large and XL) degree static head angle (assuming you're running the stock tires), which will approximate the active handling experienced on our suspended G2 29ers."

  5. #5
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,073
    Bontrager is in fact doing a G2 switchblade which will be a total redesign of the fork. It's coming, but not here yet.

    For an "economical" alternative, look for a steel On One Superlight fork, or spend a little more and get the Carbon Superlight. Both have 47mm offsets, which will keep you close to where you were with G2, and quite honestly, will probably work out perfectly.

    I read that response from the Fisher site, and I have to say that I do not agree with that at all. While you can put a Switchblade/38mm ofset fork on a G2 29"er, and while it would definitely be rideable, it would be a totally different handling package from what G2 is. Not even close.

    Eventually a G2 offset fork will come out of Bontrager, and when it does, you might just hear a different tune coming from the Fisher website.

  6. #6
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    963
    g.t. is right on the money....you want to go with the on one fork,and I have tried them all....I use both the on one steel and carbon and they ride to perfection

    As you can see my fisher and niner keep each other warm at night,check out the pics.....
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #7
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,378

    Go Custom

    You could also get a custom rigid fork made with 465mm Axle to Crown and 51mm offset. I have spoke with Walt (Waltworks) about having a steel one made for my 08 Rig.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Any thoughts on the Vassago ODIS fork working for this application?

    The offset is close to the On One. I have seen some pretty good reviews and posts on here about the fork. For the cost it seems to be a deal.

  9. #9
    M_S
    M_S is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,410
    I was just going to say Vassago. I have no ral experience with G2, but from the numbers this looks like the best fork.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    218

    vice versa

    Would the opposite hold i.e. put a 'G2' fork on an 'G1' Fisher for better handling? I am eyeballing a 07 rig frame and wondering this. btw- can you 1x9 a Rig if you wanted to?

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,598
    Quote Originally Posted by beastwood9
    btw- can you 1x9 a Rig if you wanted to?
    '08 + Rig are easy to 1 x 9 (I did it for winter riding), but older ones don't have an easy way to add a derailleur hanger.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    26

    G2 offset

    http://bontrager.com/model/08355

    figure this is posted somewhere already. but here it is again

  13. #13
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,073
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxplosif
    http://bontrager.com/model/08355

    figure this is posted somewhere already. but here it is again
    Yup! The forks should be here by the end of the year. At least that is the latest I've heard from Bontrager.

    Both a 46mm offset and a 51mm offset, which will both be nice choices with Fisher hard tails.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    90
    How do you think the Niner carbon fork would do on, say, a rig with G2? (a-c 470, 45 mm rake)

  15. #15
    WNC Native
    Reputation: nitrousjunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,378
    The Niner fork would probably work well on the G2 Fisher. That puts it right there with the Redline and On One Forks. I've seen several people that have used the On One forks on G2 frames and really liked them (29ERCAT being one of those).
    "I ride to clear my head, my head is clearer when I'm riding SS. Therefore, I choose to ride SS."~ Fullrange Drew

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    13
    Does anyone have insight as to whether the shorter offset of, say, a Niner or On-one fork would lead to more oversteer or understeer compared to a 51mm offset fork on a G2 bke?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by standriese
    Does anyone have insight as to whether the shorter offset of, say, a Niner or On-one fork would lead to more oversteer or understeer compared to a 51mm offset fork on a G2 bke?
    A fork with less offset should slow the steering down somewhat on G2 bike. I don't know if you can really apply oversteer or understeer to bike handling if you are referring to the terms as applied to car handling. You would probably notice very little difference between a 47mm offset and a 51mm offset all other things being equal. Some people do say that they like a 47mmish offset better on a G2 bike.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    13
    Thanks for the reply. What I'm getting at with the 'over/understeer' terms would probably better be described as tendency for rear or front tire to break loose in a turn respectively. I've loved my G2 Rig and Superfly SS, but at first tended to push the front end a little in the turns, and tended to go down from front tire sliding out. I much prefer to have rear break free and did get better handling from adapting and somewhat from stretching out more (moving saddle back, slightly longer stem) which I needed to do for better fit anyway. Actually, I'm not sure how the longer stem played into that equation.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    448
    Also look at the Misfit Psycles alloy fork. It's lighter than some of the straight-leg carbon forks and offset I think is 45.

  20. #20
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,073
    Quote Originally Posted by standriese
    Thanks for the reply. What I'm getting at with the 'over/understeer' terms would probably better be described as tendency for rear or front tire to break loose in a turn respectively. I've loved my G2 Rig and Superfly SS, but at first tended to push the front end a little in the turns, and tended to go down from front tire sliding out. I much prefer to have rear break free and did get better handling from adapting and somewhat from stretching out more (moving saddle back, slightly longer stem) which I needed to do for better fit anyway. Actually, I'm not sure how the longer stem played into that equation.
    Your longer stem got your weight out over the front wheel, increasing traction. I don't know but to me, this reads like a "weighting the front tire" issue more than an offset issue.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    562
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitar Ted
    Your longer stem got your weight out over the front wheel, increasing traction. I don't know but to me, this reads like a "weighting the front tire" issue more than an offset issue.
    That was exactly my thought. Also, the tire you are running up front can make a difference. Some tires just let go earlier or less predictably.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    13
    I think your right that front tire traction is the issue and dependent on tire type and weighting. Since my longer stem didn't at first seem to help the problem (in fact, my perception was that raising stem height helped, which was actually getting weight off my front wheel) it wasn't 'til I slid my saddle back that I got better control of front wheel slide. My conclusion was that getting back on the bike made me less committed to the front wheel so that a little slide could be controlled rather than slamming me immediately to the dirt. Still not sure if my conclusion was correct... maybe I just learned how to ride. Back to the effect of offset... if weighting the front wheel enhances traction, shorter offset may be good for front tire traction in that it brings the wheel back slightly, distributing a bit more of your weight on it. Also would then have to figure in the effect of slightly more 'body english' which I'm assuming would be necessary due to the sligtly slower steering.

  23. #23
    Harmonius Wrench
    Reputation: Guitar Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,073
    Quote Originally Posted by standriese
    ........Back to the effect of offset... if weighting the front wheel enhances traction, shorter offset may be good for front tire traction in that it brings the wheel back slightly, distributing a bit more of your weight on it. Also would then have to figure in the effect of slightly more 'body english' which I'm assuming would be necessary due to the sligtly slower steering.
    Well, it is a hard thing to say, really. Head angle, fork axle to crown, tire type, pressure, suspension fork, sus fork set up, rigid fork, trail type......alot of variables to consider here.

    All else remaining the same, in theory you are correct. In practice, it may not work that way at all dependant upon some very important variables, as pointed out.

    Generally speaking it would perhaps make more sense to concentrate on proper fit on the bike first. That may call out certain component changes, and then you could go from there.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    13
    Agreed. As a physiatrist and road racer who takes particular interest in bike fit, I felt almost hypocritical moving the saddle back for that reason. Given that I have a 120 mm stem on a 21" bike, I also had no choice if I wanted more cockpit room. Since the handling improved and power actually felt better when I stretched out, I kept it. (That gets into the whole 'opening up the hip angle as you raise your bar height' discussion normally had by triathletes). It's been fascinating to me, however, because on a mountain bike the handling effects of weight distribution and body position are so palpable. Road bikes (and tri-bikes even less) rarely loose traction.

    I did notice, however, when I used to own an Colnago C-40, that if it broke loose a little on gravel or dirt, it had the most secure feel of any road bike I've ever had. It always gave way slightly and controllably at the rear wheel first. It also felt more stable in a paceline than any other bike I've had. You relaxedly could take a drink, pick your nose etc while 4" behind the wheel in front of you. I've heard others describe this Colnago quality and relate it to fitting those bikes by rider being 'draped over' the bike. Meaning they respond well to rearward saddle position and long stem. Colnago's also have slack seat and head angles. Thanks for getting involved in the discussion Guitar Ted. I always appreciate your posts and reviews.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by Fishlips
    A fork with less offset should slow the steering down somewhat on G2 bike.
    newbie question, but can this be a good thing when commuting or riding leisurely (10mph) in a state park and steering away from dogs and pedestrians? i can understand why people doing real mountain biking and needing to steer away from obstacles need fast steering...but how about in the above described case? or, is the steering just less "responsive" (don't know if this means anything different).

    by the way, what is a "flip-flop washed out feeling"? does this mean a geometrical impedance of the tire itself from steering (due to less offset) hence "flip flop" and therefore increased chance of sidewall failure? i'm sure that i'm overthinking this but i'd appreciate the elaboration. thanks.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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