Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,106

    9:ZERO:7 Not Offering 170mm Frames?

    Looking on their website and a few others, I don't see a 170mm offering anymore.

    Are they only moving forward w/ 190mm bikes?

    Discuss.

  2. #2
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,234
    Is there some reason you are looking for a new frame? Something you did not fully disclosed?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,675
    Related to your highway/bike incident? No 170 frames it appears anymore from them. Your options are limited- '14 Kona, '14 Trek, '14 Mukluk, On-One. I'm not sure what else is out there that is new. I've never seen a "standard" change so fast.

  4. #4
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,057
    nope, they discontinued them when the 190 standard was introduced.

  5. #5
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,696
    Im still trying to figure out if my 907 offset pulls to the right ... might take a few more years but I will not quit till I figure it out
    I am slow therefore I am

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,106
    Quote Originally Posted by bdundee View Post
    Is there some reason you are looking for a new frame? Something you did not fully disclosed?

    My frame is not bend that I can tell. Saddle, handlebar plugs, and RD took the brunt. I was just cururois as to what the new frames were. Cannot believe they ditched 170mm that quick. Maybe just too many players in the game?

  7. #7
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,517
    My guess is they are more focused towards snow-riding, so naturally widest frame, widest rims, widest tires.....

    I had asked them last year about a full suspension frame and they said they weren't interested in going that direction...so makes sense they go as wide as possible.

  8. #8
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    8,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Burnt-Orange View Post
    Im still trying to figure out if my 907 offset pulls to the right ... might take a few more years but I will not quit till I figure it out
    And I thought you where smarter than this, everyone knows that the wheel is further to the right which puts your weight to the left so causing it to pull left. You sir are not worthy enough to be my friend.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133

    Re: 9:ZERO:7 Not Offering 170mm Frames?

    Anything less than 6" tires on 150mm rims are no good!

  10. #10
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,517
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    Anything less than 6" tires on 150mm rims are no good!
    Just wait a year, that comment will be like telling the future!

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,103
    Quote Originally Posted by Shark View Post
    My guess is they are more focused towards snow-riding, so naturally widest frame, widest rims, widest tires.....
    Except that they are in Anchorage where trails mostly get packed out before it stops snowing and you do not need widest frame, widest rims and widest tires....., sometimes wide would be nice but not most of the time. They sell a lot of 190 frames with 80mm rims and 4" tires.
    Latitude 61

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by MiniTrail View Post
    cue gcappy in 3 2 1 ...
    Hey, don't stereo type me! I'm not just some 5" tire 100mm rim lover. Well, maybe I am!

    I was rockin it tonight out on the power line rock trail with my wife next to me on her 9-0-7, 170 with Bud/GC on Holy Rolling Darrel's and I thought, wow that bike would look great if it would fit 100mm rims with those monster tires.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,675
    Yep, 210/217 rear hubs and 150 fronts. And then there will still be Pugsleys.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,133
    Why go with 6" tires when you could go with 8" tires.



    fortune HANEBRINK: fortune HANEBRINK - YouTube

    Actually looks kind of fun to ride.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraspontane View Post
    Why go with 6" tires when you could go with 8" tires.



    fortune HANEBRINK: fortune HANEBRINK - YouTube

    Actually looks kind of fun to ride.
    Not bad. Just need a little more diameter for clearance!

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    Except that they are in Anchorage where trails mostly get packed out before it stops snowing and you do not need widest frame, widest rims and widest tires....., sometimes wide would be nice but not most of the time. They sell a lot of 190 frames with 80mm rims and 4" tires.
    Yeah, gotta say this year around Madison, WI the trails were all really well packed... not a lot of need for the bigger tires but I know how it is, bigger always equals better, even when it doesn't.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    Quote Originally Posted by buckfiddious View Post
    Yeah, gotta say this year around Madison, WI the trails were all really well packed... not a lot of need for the bigger tires but I know how it is, bigger always equals better, even when it doesn't.
    (Not a lot of need) depends on who's need your talking about. Same with (bigger always =better even when it doesn't).
    Most people on this forum have a tendency to express their idea of what's best as every ones. There is no proof of what is required or needed in the fat bike world so it's all subjective to our individual taste. Truth be told, Fat bikes are certainly not needed!
    My idea of a fat bike is the biggest tire/rim combo I can fit in a frame but I never try to imply that should suit every one. If you guy's are happy with a semi fat bike that's up to you. lol.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: buckfiddious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by gcappy View Post
    (Not a lot of need) depends on who's need your talking about. Same with (bigger always =better even when it doesn't).
    Most people on this forum have a tendency to express their idea of what's best as every ones. There is no proof of what is required or needed in the fat bike world so it's all subjective to our individual taste. Truth be told, Fat bikes are certainly not needed!
    My idea of a fat bike is the biggest tire/rim combo I can fit in a frame but I never try to imply that should suit every one. If you guy's are happy with a semi fat bike that's up to you. lol.
    I'm just amazed at the way things changed between this last winter and the winter previous. Two years ago there weren't tires wide enough to keep me upright, this last year, every trail well packed, might have been able to get by on a cyclocross bike.

    2 years ago, there was a lot of need, this last year, not so much.

    In a way it's funny- as fatbikes become more popular, the bigger tires (4.6-5") go on more bikes, but the more fatbikes out on the trails, the more groomed the trails get, the less you need the super fat tires.

    Personally, I get the feeling that if fatbikes survive, riding is gonna be a lot more like XC skiing than bushwhacking... All groomed trails and trail passes. Just like regular MTBs. Which kind of gives me a sad.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gcappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,641
    I almost never ride in snow so I am only concerned with how much dirt traction I can get. I have ridden my 29er full suspension with Nobby Nicks on the same trails as my 9-0-7 with B/L on Shoes and Lefty. I almost bit the dust trying to stay upright. For me bigger is better!

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,106
    Quote Originally Posted by gcappy View Post
    I have ridden my 29er full suspension with Nobby Nicks on the same trails as my 9-0-7 with B/L on Shoes and Lefty. I almost bit the dust trying to stay upright. For me bigger is better!
    What is funny is that NN is considered a pretty burly/knobby tire, but doesn't hold a candle to the grip offered by even hudu/knard combo. As the trails get dried out as the summer wears on, I really do appreciate the extra grip fat gives me. The problem is you come to expect it in a sketchy corner, and boom. Boo-boo on the elbow.

Similar Threads

  1. New Jet 9 RDO offering
    By Rev. 14 in forum Niner Bikes
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-18-2014, 12:24 PM
  2. Airborne is now offering financing on bikes and frames.
    By BigDaddyFlyer in forum Airborne
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-06-2014, 03:48 PM
  3. Biggest Tire clearance 170mm and 17.5mm frames?
    By ntm1973 in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-10-2014, 06:04 PM
  4. 170mm frames - Pivot Firebird VS Trek Scratch
    By climbingbubba in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-05-2011, 01:56 PM
  5. New Offering
    By Chris2fur in forum Titus
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-14-2011, 04:28 PM

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.