Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 449
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506

    Chinese carbon full suspension fat bike

    Over in the Chinese carbon fat bike thread Peter (formerly from xmiplay - both he and his wife Bella have left , and are in the process of setting up a new company) recently posted this . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterXu View Post
    I will make FS carbon fat bike frame this year, you will see.

    Please feel free to contact me via my own email: petercycles@foxmail.com

    Skype: peterxu1206
    After asking if he would be interested in forum input to possibly "help" in the design of this promised new bike , here is his reply . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterXu View Post
    Thank you so much FB. I like the design of Salsa Bucksaw. And I am asking our designer to draw now, sizes might be 16''/18''/20''.


    Of course I would like your input and want to know what kind of design you guys would like.


    These are some points of my thoughts: 100mm BB, 197x12 TA rear end, max tire size would be 4.8'' or 5.0'', and 100mm Rockshox Bluto fork fitting.


    I want to offer the very things you need and like.

    So as not to derail the carbon hardtail fat bike thread too much I thought it wise to start a new thread .
    Something tells me this could be one hot topic with some lively debate .

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Biker View Post
    Thanks Peter.

    Here are some of my ​personal thoughts. Hopefully others will suggest things too .


    197x12 - To help reduce unwanted flex in the rear triangle due to having the suspension pivots .


    120mm BB - So you can have wider main pivot bearings, again to reduce unwanted flex in the rear / less loading on the bearings. Also possibly a better chainline with a 197mm rear ?
    Having a 120mm BB would also mean you would ba able to make more room inbetween the chain stays for a 5.0" tyre.
    You can always fit a narrower tyre if you like. But with a small gap between the chainstays (using a 100mm BB) you might not be able to fit a big tyre. This would make the frame more attractive to more people in my opinion due to being able to fit a wider choice of tyres


    If you read the forums a lot of people are wanting to run 5.0" tyres (Surly Bud /Lou 4.8" don't usually fit in a 4.8" frame they need a 5.0" frame ?)


    Also when using Bud/Lou tyres people seem to be finding that a 120mm BB is needed for the chain to clear the tyre in the lowest gear.


    Would you also please consider putting the rear pivot on the chainstay instead of on the seatstay (like it is the carbon 29er) please ? This is open to much debate but some opinions suggest it makes for a better suspension action due to it not being susceptible to braking forces, it remains active whilst braking and doesn't lock the suspension up.


    I think aiming for a 100mm Bluto capable front end is a good call, provided the head angle isn't too slack or too steep.
    Too steep and people would need to go to a 120mm Bluto to get the steering to feel stable at speed, too shallow and they would need to drop the Bluto to 80mm to speed the steering up in single track twisties. This is a massive "can of worms" that is very personal to each rider. As I said trying to sort things out starting with a 100mm Bluto is a good middle of the road compromise for most people.


    The Bucksaw also looks like a good template to base your ideas on too.


    Thanks for allowing us some input. Hopefully others will come up with better ideas and reasons for doing so shortly.




    Fat Biker
    Some of which appear to be controversial already

    Quote Originally Posted by Lars_D View Post
    I strongly disagree with the 120mm BB idea. It reduces compatibility and options with no significant benefit--terrible idea which will reduce sales. Spindle length and chain-stay spacing, not BB width determines chain-line and clearance.

    So fire away folks lets have it .

    What would you like to see incorporated into the design of a fully suspended fat bike ?

    Lets see if we can help Peter to knock this design out of the park




    Fat Biker

  2. #2
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,953
    add a 22" or 23" option and I might be interested.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Gigantic View Post
    add a 22" or 23" option and I might be interested.
    We might be able to convince him if we get enough interest , but remember that each frame is constructed from a mold that costs thousands of dollars to produce (rumor has it) . So once you factor in labour and material costs you would need to sell a few hundred before you start to make profit for it to even be considered a viable proposition . It might be a better option for someone such as yourself to explore the Chinese custom ti route ? You might be surprised how much you can get for how little (considering what you are getting) Spanner Bikes a UK website dedicated to custom ti frame building

    I kinda get where you're coming from with frame fit though . I'm only 6'2" myself but but have very short legs and a looong torso . So I tend to need a small frame for cahones clearance which rides very cramped . Even with a set back post and overly long stem . Which in turn feels like it's upset the handling and I'm not getting the best out of the bike .


    Fat Biker

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    150
    I completely agree with Lars; there is absolutely no real benefit to go with a 120mm BB. Here is what the frame should be:
    -100mm BB (make sure a RaceFace Next SL with a '170mm crank spindle' fits with a reversed single ring)
    -100mm rear travel
    -197mm TA rear axle
    -70 deg head angle with a 100mm Bluto (so 69 deg with a 120mm Bluto)
    -73.5 deg seat angle
    -Bud/Lou on 90 or 100mm rim fits
    -curve the seat tube forward to shorten the chainstays as much as possible

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MUSTCLIME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    385
    Being a short person that likes to ride huge tires on a bike, I need a low standover. A 16 inch frame with a 12-13 inch bottom bracket makes it tough. Full suspension bikes need taller bottom brackets anyway or you will have peddle strikes all day long.....as for the need of 5 inch tires, its a full suspension, who needs suspension in the snow anyway?
    The bike is never to heavy, you are just to WEAK!

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    577
    510-520 axle to crown 455 chainstay

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: WSUPolar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    197
    And thus the Homer Bike is born.

  8. #8
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,581
    I just can't be convinced that 5" tires on a FS fatbike is really needed for pretty much anything.

    5" is good on a rigid or hardtail...but a fully? ehhhhhh

    I think he'd be better off designing something longer travel. THAT seems to be what folks would rather have. Of course, the limitations on that design become with the suspension fork.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brankulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,420
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I just can't be convinced that 5" tires on a FS fatbike is really needed for pretty much anything.

    5" is good on a rigid or hardtail...but a fully? ehhhhhh

    I think he'd be better off designing something longer travel. THAT seems to be what folks would rather have. Of course, the limitations on that design become with the suspension fork.
    ^this, plus short stays, 67ish ht

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rollertoaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,118
    Am I the only one who wants a modern geometry slack head angle bike?
    Team _________

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    9
    I was lucky to ride a bucksaw. I started the ride on a kona with a front shock which I wasn't comfortable on. Switching to his bucksaw (both were my friends) I was instantly more confident and that bike rides awesome. It's a great all year bike.
    5" tires could be handy in the snow

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    Designing a bike to accommodate 5" tyres would mean having great clearance on a 4" tyre so the bike could be ridden on other surfaces than snow, without getting clogged within 100'. Say mud for instance. Of which we have more than our fair share of here in the UK. And 5mm between tyre/chain/stay doesn't quite cut it in mud TBH.
    If only we could get the snow to stick around longer than 3 minutes. . . . . . .


    fat Biker

  13. #13
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    19,581
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Biker View Post
    Designing a bike to accommodate 5" tyres would mean having great clearance on a 4" tyre so the bike could be ridden on other surfaces than snow, without getting clogged within 100'. Say mud for instance. Of which we have more than our fair share of here in the UK. And 5mm between tyre/chain/stay doesn't quite cut it in mud TBH.
    If only we could get the snow to stick around longer than 3 minutes. . . . . . .


    fat Biker
    If it is that muddy, I don't ride the trail. I find a drier trail or I ride pavement. I personally do not want the heel clearance issues of a 197 rear end unless I am using 5" tires in snow.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    63
    Design by commitee will NEVER work. You cannot please everyone. Take the Bucksaw, Foes or Turner design and run with it.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    If it is that muddy, I don't ride the trail. I find a drier trail or I ride pavement.
    Harold, dunno your location, but in the UK if I only rode off-road when it was dry I would just have a road bike. Just sayin LOL


    Fat Biker

  16. #16
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    7,075
    Quote Originally Posted by WSUPolar View Post
    And thus the Homer Bike is born.
    I want a horn here, here, and here!

  17. #17
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I just can't be convinced that 5" tires on a FS fatbike is really needed for pretty much anything.

    5" is good on a rigid or hardtail...but a fully? ehhhhhh

    I think he'd be better off designing something longer travel. THAT seems to be what folks would rather have. Of course, the limitations on that design become with the suspension fork.
    Quote Originally Posted by brankulo View Post
    ^this, plus short stays, 67ish ht
    heck yeah!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,089
    You guys are so hung up on the short chain stay fad....it is starting to hurt.

    I must use my bike in much different terrain than most. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a most really short CS bikes are fairly twitchy in a hard climbing situation, and always want to lift the front end off the ground. My 9:ZERO:7 has long CS according to most, and I cannot imagine having anything shorter (for reference, I have also owned a Canfield N9 w/ short stem and wide bars. Steep climbs weren't exactly what I would call its strong suit, and that is one of the most popular short CS bikes on the market) The 9:ZERO:7 tracks very well when climbing, is able to put the power down, and has no trouble lifting the front end when needed.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    This ^

    I would also like to run 29+, which I believe would mean going for a longer chainstay to allow for seat tube/bb clearance ?


    Fat Biker

  20. #20
    Lazy People Suck
    Reputation: Fett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    756
    I personally like a little steeper HT angle (69-70) as any slacker makes a bike feel sluggish in the twisties and floppy when scratching up steep singletrack climbs. Not worth the trade off. I might feel differently if I live on a big mountain range.
    "Son, The world needs ditchdiggers, too"-Ted Knight, Caddyshack

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Swerny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,701
    Quote Originally Posted by WSUPolar View Post
    And thus the Homer Bike is born.
    Lol...isn't that already done? The Moto Quigley?

    BD jumping into the Full Sus Fatty Fray in 2016....

    Just needs the horn
    Mike
    Toronto, Canada
    2016 Trek Farley 7
    2015 RSD Mayor Bluto (sold)
    2014 Giant TCX SLR1
    2012 Giant TCR Advanced SL3

  22. #22
    bigger than you.
    Reputation: Gigantic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I just can't be convinced that 5" tires on a FS fatbike is really needed for pretty much anything.

    5" is good on a rigid or hardtail...but a fully? ehhhhhh

    I think he'd be better off designing something longer travel. THAT seems to be what folks would rather have. Of course, the limitations on that design become with the suspension fork.
    Quote Originally Posted by brankulo View Post
    ^this, plus short stays, 67ish ht
    Quote Originally Posted by jonshonda View Post
    You guys are so hung up on the short chain stay fad....it is starting to hurt.

    I must use my bike in much different terrain than most. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a most really short CS bikes are fairly twitchy in a hard climbing situation, and always want to lift the front end off the ground. My 9:ZERO:7 has long CS according to most, and I cannot imagine having anything shorter (for reference, I have also owned a Canfield N9 w/ short stem and wide bars. Steep climbs weren't exactly what I would call its strong suit, and that is one of the most popular short CS bikes on the market) The 9:ZERO:7 tracks very well when climbing, is able to put the power down, and has no trouble lifting the front end when needed.
    The terrain we have in PA, basically East Coast rocks & roots, is a lot different than what I've experienced in the midwest. On my favorite trails, we have a lot of rocks, logs, roots and steep, punchy climbs to negotiate. Don't get me wrong, I love my 9:Zero:7, but about the only thing that frustrates me, is the long chain stays, that make it more of a challenge to bunny hop, manual and negotiate tight, twisty sections. It's also nearly impossible to stand and climb, whenever I do, the rear invariably looses traction. I manage to get the bike to do most of the things I want it to, but I can't help but think that it would be a lot easier if the chain stays were 1-1/4" shorter. A lot of us are using 1x setups and I'm told that one of the main reasons for the longer stays, is to accommodate a front derailleur. I would love to see 9:Zero:7 make a 1x version with short stays and a curved seatpost that could still accommodate 29+ and fatter tires. Since they don't, my next frame will likely be a Ventana El Gordo, instead.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    My reasoning for 5" capacity is there are times and places where it's appropriate and I want it. If it's not necessary I can change to narrower tires or even different wheels, ie: 27.5+ or 29+. In my experience with fatbikes so far there are more times when I want fatter rather than narrower though.

  24. #24
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    4,258
    Quote Originally Posted by rollertoaster View Post
    Am I the only one who wants a modern geometry slack head angle bike?
    With short chainstays and a long reach!
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  25. #25
    aka bOb
    Reputation: bdundee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    7,848
    Make it so it would be impossible to use plus size tires somehow, it's a fat bike for cryin out loud!!!

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brankulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,420
    no suspension design discussed so far. preferences? i love my ibis version of dw link. also have fsr bike that i dont care much for suspension wise. I do also like maestro on my friends reign.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by AZMB'er View Post
    Design by commitee will NEVER work. You cannot please everyone. Take the Bucksaw, Foes or Turner design and run with it.
    I agree with this idea, because if you try to make the frame taking into account everyone's input this frame will never be created.

    Have to start somewhere, so build a frame and decided the changes once that frame is out on the market.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    185
    Why not build a swing arm that would fit on one of the 29er fs carbon frames?

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Captain_America1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,124
    Quote Originally Posted by KenPsz View Post
    Why not build a swing arm that would fit on one of the 29er fs carbon frames?
    Bottom bracket width most likely wouldn't work as most fat bikes use 100mm or 120mm bottom brackets.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by brankulo View Post
    no suspension design discussed so far. preferences? i love my ibis version of dw link. also have fsr bike that i dont care much for suspension wise. I do also like maestro on my friends reign.
    A few months ago I came across a Chinese carbon frame with a very "Maestro" looking rear end. I think it was a 650b but was being marketed as a dh lite offering.

    Can't for the life of me find the site now. I wouldn't imagine it would take a great deal to translate the design to a fat bike though.


    Fat Biker

  31. #31
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    73
    The geometry drawing will be finished soon in 5 days.

  32. #32
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,071
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterXu View Post
    The geometry drawing will be finished soon in 5 days.
    thanks Peter...looking forward to your design!
    14 GT Zaskar 9r
    15 Moto Night Train
    08 BMC Trailfox
    06 Cannondale Rush
    99 GT XCR
    93 Raleigh MT 200

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    Brilliant news Peter . Will your technical drawings include dimensions of rear tyre clearance as well please ?

    Thanks



    Fat Biker


    P.S. Is your website live yet too ?

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    73
    Finally my website is online: Xiamen Carbon Speed Co.,Ltd

    And my own private FS fat bike frame mold design in 17'' is finally confirmed, but I am not able to upload the PDF file.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    185
    Oh sweet!!!! Now I need to save some cash.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    Me too. It's never ending having to save for that n+1 bike. LOL

    I think things are gonna explode round here pretty soon though .



    Fat Biker
    Last edited by Fat Biker; 04-20-2015 at 09:01 PM.

  37. #37
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    73
    What do you guys think about the rear spacing ? 177 thru axle better or 197 thru axle ? There are few hubs option for 177 I think, but most do have 197 option. This is the only one thing I haven't decide on our frame design

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    577
    I already have a 190 hub. If the bike feels more nimble than the current offering of fat bikes. 177 and 65 mm rims would make riders happy. 5 inch tires aren't fast and what's the point of having suspension if the bike feels sluggish.

    Make people want to sell their 29ers.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    179
    197 can run any wheel and tire size available. 177 may be limited to certain sizes.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    How wide does a Ground Control run tubeless on an 80mm rim come in at (carcass and tread) please ?
    I heard Bud and Lou are roughly 115mm on an 80mm rim tubeless at the widest is this correct ?

    Anybody wanna chime in with tyre widths (tubeless) on a 65mm rim please .


    Fat Biker

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by kidd View Post
    177 and 65 mm rims would make riders happy. 5 inch tires aren't fast and what's the point of having suspension if the bike feels sluggish.
    This.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blowery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by kidd View Post
    177 and 65 mm rims would make riders happy. 5 inch tires aren't fast and what's the point of having suspension if the bike feels sluggish.
    agree with this

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    185
    After riding my brother-in-laws Bucksaw I would not want sluggish to be added to this. That bike has both quickness and the advantages of fat tires.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,973
    Quote Originally Posted by thunderzy View Post
    197 can run any wheel and tire size available. 177 may be limited to certain sizes.
    As proved by a number of direct purchase carbon fat bike frames this is not true. The designer also has to make sure the chain and seat stays will clear the bigger tires. There is nothing as pointless, in my mind, as a 197 bike that can't run big tires.
    Latitude 61

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by sryanak View Post
    As proved by a number of direct purchase carbon fat bike frames this is not true. The designer also has to make sure the chain and seat stays will clear the bigger tires. There is nothing as pointless, in my mind, as a 197 bike that can't run big tires.
    You are correct, 197 that can't accommodate 5" tires is pure stupidity. But same can be said about a 177 that can't run the big meat. Of course everyone has different needs or wants. There is no right answer here. My suggestion is which ever hub sizing you choose please design the rear end to accommodate 5" tires. (That should be PC enough for everyone to agree with)

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    What I cant get my head around is some peoples attitude that seems to be - If it can fit 5" tyres then that's the only size tyre I can possibly ever run . Running big fat tyres for my use case scenario is dumb ! And if you wanna run big fat tyres then you're dumb too.

    I stress this only seems to be some people and not everyone.

    Would it not be OK to be able to fit a larger tyre if you wanted or need to ? Last time I checked folks were running fat bikes on other terrain than just snow.
    If I ran my Fatty in just snow I'd have been out for 40mins at 3am mid week 2months ago n that's it !
    I live in the UK so running a 4" tyre with clearance for a 5" tyre gives what we call over here "mud clearance" which does not equate to less than 10mm between tyre and stay. Which some people deem adequate ?????

    Is it so difficult to run a 4" tyre on a 65mm rim on a frame that can run 5" tyres on any rim you choose ?


    Fat Biker

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    In other news. . . . . . . . hopefully 150mm rear travel


    Fat Biker

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    577
    177mm hub would still be fine with you as long as it had plenty of mud clearence.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Biker View Post
    What I cant get my head around is some peoples attitude that seems to be - If it can fit 5" tyres then that's the only size tyre I can possibly ever run . Running big fat tyres for my use case scenario is dumb ! And if you wanna run big fat tyres then you're dumb too.

    I stress this only seems to be some people and not everyone.

    Would it not be OK to be able to fit a larger tyre if you wanted or need to ? Last time I checked folks were running fat bikes on other terrain than just snow.
    If I ran my Fatty in just snow I'd have been out for 40mins at 3am mid week 2months ago n that's it !
    I live in the UK so running a 4" tyre with clearance for a 5" tyre gives what we call over here "mud clearance" which does not equate to less than 10mm between tyre and stay. Which some people deem adequate ?????

    Is it so difficult to run a 4" tyre on a 65mm rim on a frame that can run 5" tyres on any rim you choose ?


    Fat Biker
    I agree with this. I'd definitely rather see a frame capable of fitting a 5" tire and be able to run any tire size I wanted, than limit my choices with only clearance for a 4.0.

    Even if I don't think I'd ever run tires that big, why limit yourself? Minds change and you may find yourself wanting to try a bigger tire after all at some point.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by kidd View Post
    177mm hub would still be fine with you as long as it had plenty of mud clearence.
    I'd run a 135mm rear if I could run any tyre I choose and still have clearance on the chain and stays.

    I just don't see the point of limiting myself to half of what's available on the market at the present time.

    Options are good no ?


    Fat Bike

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 26er Carbon Fiber Full Suspension Chinese Frame Information
    By trailville in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-14-2015, 12:32 PM
  2. My first full bike build - all Chinese carbon 29er Pics.
    By Ray Knight in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-12-2014, 03:25 PM
  3. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-25-2013, 07:26 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-07-2013, 07:55 PM

Posting Permissions

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