Page 25 of 38 FirstFirst ... 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 35 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 625 of 926
  1. #601
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,947
    Quote Originally Posted by mattbryant2 View Post
    Yes is the answer. That bike needs a black collar anyway
    That's what I was thinking. Not to mention, I think those NoTubes stickers on my wheels have got to go as well to get a more stealth black look.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattbryant2 View Post
    FWIW, I just broke the bolt to my Surly collar the other night. Your caution is justified.
    Bummer. As my post was slipping on the trail yesterday and I kept stopping to tighten it, I sensed the impending danger of doing the same, but stopped before I hit that point.

    BB

  2. #602
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mattbryant2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    That's what I was thinking. Not to mention, I think those NoTubes stickers on my wheels have got to go as well to get a more stealth black look.



    Bummer. As my post was slipping on the trail yesterday and I kept stopping to tighten it, I sensed the impending danger of doing the same, but stopped before I hit that point.

    BB
    Good call. It's my opinion that rim stickers should always be peeled. But I think all stickers should be peeled...

    Took less torque than I would have expected to break that bolt. If you replace the Surly clamp, let us know what you go with. I've been disappointed by the Hope bolt-on, as well as the Thomson. I still need to try the Salsa.
    Last edited by mattbryant2; 12-15-2012 at 11:29 AM.

  3. #603
    R.I.P. Pugsley.
    Reputation: Rabies010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    I agree with you on the rim decals, lose them.
    But i disagree with you on the Thomson seatclamp, i have one on my Cannondale and it works great. (to bad it doesn't fit on my Surly's)
    I weigh around 265# and the one i had on before kept slipping and i kept tightening it until... Snap !

  4. #604
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mattbryant2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,120
    My Thomson clamp was constantly creaking due to dirt finding its way underneath the bottom interior lip, which I concluded was a design flaw. I was actually disappointed with my Thomson post, as well, so I've moved away from the brand entirely. Shame because the parts are so pretty, and I like supporting domestic manufacturing.

    My relationship with Thomson parts is analogous to my relationship with nearly every "high-end" part I've tried -- I end up preferring the less blingy, slightly heavier, much less fussy alternative. I am just getting rid of my last King headset and doubt I'll go back, I greatly prefer my XT hubs to the Pro IIs I had previously, my Deore cranks are much nicer than the Mr. Whirlys they replaced, etc. etc. etc.

    Anyway, I digress. I apologize for the hijack.

    More Monkeys!

  5. #605
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lumbee1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    Rides exactly the same - at least in terms of feel and handling.

    Noted differences include:

    •Longer head tube on the newest frame (positive for me).

    •Disc brake only which rules out certain configurations I used on the older frame (I knew that going into it, so I won't label it a negative or a positive).

    •About 4mm wider in the chainstay area which allows use of a Ralph 2.4, Ardent 2.4, Nic 2.35, etc.... back there without experiencing rub (positive).

    •Cable routing is under the top tube (I'm going to call that a negative as the entire weight of the cable is on the zip ties which is not a problem for hydraulic disc brakes, but is not the best support system for cable pull mechanical disc brakes - I broke the front zip tie on test ride number one).

    •Seatpost collar is not as sturdy and strong as the older model (negative).

    •Rear disc brake mounts are in a better location to allow for rear wheel removal without having to loosen the caliper mounting bolts (positive).

    *Lugs at the TT/HT juncture on the new frame (negative in terms of looks for me, positive for those who dig lugs).

    •On the old frame, my grips would contact the TT if turning the wheel which is nothing to worry about in terms of frame scratching. On the new frame with the bars at the same exact height, the brake levers hit the TT which could case a scratch or two. No biggie, but it illustrates that the TT is lower than on the older frame - at least in size XL.

    All of that being said, I have not yet tried the rigid fork that came with the new frame. I will be interested to do that to compare as I have 9 years of riding the old frame as a rigid under my belt, and only a couple of weeks with a suspension fork.

    Net-net, I'd say the positives were worth the upgrade for me.

    BB
    Bruce, do you know when these changes occurred? I have a 2008 Monkey and although I love the ride, I have some minor issues with it. The head tube is only 95mm (large), the chainstays don't allow pushing an Ardent 2.4 all the way forward, and top of top tube cable routing. The cable routing and head tube have obviously been addressed in the new frame but this is the first time I have had someone confirm that there is more space between the chainstays. Is there any way you could show the chainstay differences between the years? IMO, the Monkey is the best and original short stay 29'er. I rode a nimble 9 not too long ago a d while I had high hopes for the frame, I came away very dissappointed.

  6. #606
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumbee1 View Post
    Bruce, do you know when these changes occurred? I have a 2008 Monkey and although I love the ride, I have some minor issues with it. The head tube is only 95mm (large), the chainstays don't allow pushing an Ardent 2.4 all the way forward, and top of top tube cable routing. The cable routing and head tube have obviously been addressed in the new frame but this is the first time I have had someone confirm that there is more space between the chainstays. Is there any way you could show the chainstay differences between the years? IMO, the Monkey is the best and original short stay 29'er. I rode a nimble 9 not too long ago a d while I had high hopes for the frame, I came away very dissappointed.
    I don't know exactly which generation of KM frame that the width at the chainstay was added, but there was a point along the way when Surly upped it. I believe it was the version right before the latest (so between your 2008 and the latest incarnation). But don't quote me on that. Maybe somebody else will chime in on the version differences to clarify it.

    The refinements in the latest frame version was enough to attract my attention thanks to the longer head tube, disc brake only, more forgiving fork, top tube redesign, etc... . Your frame bumped up to 110mm in head tube length which cuts down on the plumbing requirements over the 95mm you have.

    I can measure for you the distance between the chainstays on the 2002-3 frame and the 2012-13 frame while taking pictures of me doing that so you can compare to your bike. I have no idea if there was a step-ladder approach to adding width over the generations, or if it was a one time refinement at some point (like this new frame version). Pictures probably won't happen until this afternoon since I'm heading up to hear my son sing a solo this morning. But I will do that for you at some point today.

    In my first measurement between the two frames I have, the new black frame is 4mm wider than my original Campstove green. 4mm is significant as that is the difference between a true 2.25" tire and a true 2.4" tire.

    I still would like a bit more clearance for mud, but it's a very important improvement - IMO - so I can run the big meat in the rear. I also have the Ardents which are, for all practical purposes, very similar in casing width, tread width, height to the Racing Ralph 2.4. Measuring out the differences would be splitting hairs with regard to 1/2 a millimeter here, 1/2 a millimeter there.

    BB

  7. #607
    R.I.P. Pugsley.
    Reputation: Rabies010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,859
    I took some quick measurements on my 2012 monkey without taking the wheel out.
    Wheel : P-35 with a new model Big Apple : 61mm
    Total clearance between the seatstays : 80mm
    Total clearance between the chainstays : 78mm
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Let's see your KM builds-dscn1692.jpg  


  8. #608
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    17,605
    I also have a 2007-8 Monkey and just measured the stays, Seatstay=92mm, Chainstay=76mm (measured at the dimple) Never understood why the seat stays had so much room and then the chain stays got narrower by so much. Just measured a 2.4" Ardent on Crest rim (front wheel) and got 60mm, so I'd have thought it would fit, although tight. I've run a WW LT in back without issue and that's just a tad smaller.

    Personally I for some reason don't like running the stays slammed, makes the bike too twitchy for me, yet I like my Paradox with it's 16.9" stays Seriously waiting for the Knard to become available so I can run it paired with either the Ardent 2.4" or WW LT on some 35mm rims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lumbee1 View Post
    Bruce, do you know when these changes occurred? I have a 2008 Monkey and although I love the ride, I have some minor issues with it. The head tube is only 95mm (large), the chainstays don't allow pushing an Ardent 2.4 all the way forward, and top of top tube cable routing. The cable routing and head tube have obviously been addressed in the new frame but this is the first time I have had someone confirm that there is more space between the chainstays. Is there any way you could show the chainstay differences between the years? IMO, the Monkey is the best and original short stay 29'er. I rode a nimble 9 not too long ago a d while I had high hopes for the frame, I came away very dissappointed.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  9. #609
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Rabies010 View Post
    I took some quick measurements on my 2012 monkey without taking the wheel out.

    Total clearance between the seatstays : 80mm
    Total clearance between the chainstays : 78mm
    Old KM seatstay: 80mm
    New KM seatstay: 80mm (no change as it wasn't warranted)

    Old KM chainstay: 70-71mm (70.x on top, 71mm on the bottom)
    New KM chainstay: 78mm on the bottom

    It's not easy to really see the improved chainstay clearance in photographs, but trust me it is there. I would get rub using the Ralph 2.4 in the rear on the old KM on climbs. Not so on the new frame with the same tire thanks to the additional 4mm on each side.

    I am actually not going to take the rear wheel off the new KM today to shoot a picture with the calipers in there because my back wheel with the Tuggnut and chain tension is set up perfectly at the moment. Those of you who have to fiddle to get things lined up back there understand - I'm sure. I'm a nice guy, but not nice enough to go out in the cold garage and mess with all of that for a photo. I measured the width of the chainstay between the indentation points of the chainstays.

    In spite of the cold, I did go out to take some flipped upside down bike pictures. My close up photography is terrible. What shows up in the photo is not what I see in the real situation as my viewfinder doesn't line up with the lens.

    Regardless old KM with a Ralph 2.4 (note: the tire is not pushed as far forward in this photo as it is on my new 2012 frame because I was running gears in this picture and the Monkey Nuts were installed):

    KM&RRchainstay

    New KM with the same Ralph 2.4 (and you see the additional brace that was added between the chainstays when Surly tweaked the frames to have wider clearance):

    P1010004

    Speaking of my "bad photography", what you see for clearance on the right side of the picture is exactly how much space is also on the left side between the tire and chainstay. Yet, the picture doesn't depict that at all. Go figure.

    Couple more...

    P1010007

    P1010002 2
    Last edited by BruceBrown; 12-16-2012 at 11:05 AM.

  10. #610
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,083
    I have a 12 km with 2.4 racing ralphs on p35. Wheel slammed forward gives tire rub on the stays when cranking hard.

  11. #611
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,947
    Quote Originally Posted by thickfog View Post
    I have a 12 km with 2.4 racing ralphs on p35. Wheel slammed forward gives tire rub on the stays when cranking hard.
    I would imagine it's not the only frame that this would occur on since the tire "grows" on a P35 2-3mm in extra width. What does your Ralph measure out to on the P35 in mm's (casing width and knob width)? I would think that rim would be more beneficial to run on the front of a KM with a rigid fork, rather than in the rear. Not that the KM is an All Mountain sort of ride to begin with, coupled with the built in flex of a steel frame.

    Even with a 2.4 in the rear on a Flow, I don't have a generous amount of room left for mud collection when running a 2.4. I do not, however, experience tire rub on the chainstays on the new KM. We certainly push the envelope and rim width is one thing to be taken into consideration when choosing a frame.
    Last edited by BruceBrown; 12-16-2012 at 12:18 PM.

  12. #612
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seat_boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,632
    I would love to hear your thoughts on the KM vs the N9. I've been thinking about the Nimble 9 for quite a while, but I'm still suspicious of the slack geometry (and I'm borderline too cheap to spend $700 for an otherwise basic Taiwanese steel frame)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lumbee1 View Post
    IMO, the Monkey is the best and original short stay 29'er. I rode a nimble 9 not too long ago a d while I had high hopes for the frame, I came away very dissappointed.
    WTB: Specialized AWOL frameset, XL

  13. #613
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,083
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceBrown View Post
    I would imagine it's not the only frame that this would occur on since the tire "grows" on a P35 2-3mm in extra width. What does your Ralph measure out to on the P35 in mm's (casing width and knob width)? I would think that rim would be more beneficial to run on the front of a KM with a rigid fork, rather than in the rear. Not that the KM is an All Mountain sort of ride to begin with, coupled with the built in flex of a steel frame.

    Even with a 2.4 in the rear on a Flow, I don't have a generous amount of room left for mud collection when running a 2.4. I do not, however, experience tire rub on the chainstays on the new KM. We certainly push the envelope and rim width is one thing to be taken into consideration when choosing a frame.
    Mine measure right at 2.4 using calipers. Yeah, I'm running out of production frames to fit the fatness I want. I guess I'll need to pick up a custom or the krampus framset!

    I want to try the knard on my p35 for the front of my monkey. Rear, obviously no way. Might be too squirmy though.

    P35s are huge. Love em. Don't hold a bead like stans and they seem to dent easily, but what fun otherwise.
    Last edited by thickfog; 12-16-2012 at 06:05 PM.

  14. #614
    Always Learning
    Reputation: BruceBrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,947
    Quote Originally Posted by thickfog View Post
    Yeah, I'm running out of production frames to fit the fatness I want. I guess I'll need to pick up a custom or the krampus framset!
    Why not just get a Fat Bike and be done with it?

    Only 61mm on the P35's? Hmmm....I would have figured they gained 2-3mm.

  15. #615
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thickfog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,083
    I've got two fatbikes already. I want something between normal mt bike and fatbike. I'm betting I'd like the krampus, but I want to try one before I buy. The big but is do I want a 30lb single speed?

    Yeah, right at 2.4., but still much wider than any of my other regular bikes.

  16. #616
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lumbee1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by seat_boy View Post
    I would love to hear your thoughts on the KM vs the N9. I've been thinking about the Nimble 9 for quite a while, but I'm still suspicious of the slack geometry (and I'm borderline too cheap to spend $700 for an otherwise basic Taiwanese steel frame)
    The N9 was setup very similar to my Monkey. Large frame, single speed, medium width wheels, wide tires, and 685mm bars. The N9 had a flat bar with a 90mm stem while my Monkey has a very low rise 12* bar with a longer stem. The major difference was that the N9 was tubeless and running ridiculously low pressures 8 to 14psi while I run 17 psi front and 21 psi rear.

    First impressions with a leg over the bike was that the head tube is much taller but not intrusive. The steering has significant floppiness to it, but the seating position was very similar to my Monkey.

    Once riding, my disappointments set in quickly. The chainstays are WIDE. I rarely hit the chainstays on the Monkey, but with the N9 my heels were hittting the chainstays on just about every rotation. I had to consciously pigeon toe to avoid the strikes. The floppiness of the steering translated to a twitchy ride and the low pressures made the bike even more squirrelly on the trails. I could ride fast but I was correcting quite a bit. The Monkey drives straight and true while the N9 was jetting left and right. The tall front end and slack steering gave some confidence with speed and descents. The wheelbase or footprint felt very similar to the Monkey and the ride very familiar in that aspect. With the low pressures in the tires, it was difficult to judge the stiffness of the frame.

    Even with proper air pressure in the tires, the floppiness and wide chainstays were a deal breaker for me. I only spent about 10 minutes on the N9, but I was glad to get my Monkey back. It made me appreciate the ride that much more.

  17. #617
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seat_boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,632
    I appreciate the feedback. I demo'd a Jamis Dragon 650B, which is also part of the slack trend (68* HA with a 120mm fork), and I really didn't care for it. It too felt quite floppy on the climbs. Sounds like the Nimble 9 is kind of similar.

    It's nice to hear a change of opinion from the love fest that is the Nimble 9 thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lumbee1 View Post
    The N9 was setup very similar to my Monkey. Large frame, single speed, medium width wheels, wide tires, and 685mm bars. The N9 had a flat bar with a 90mm stem while my Monkey has a very low rise 12* bar with a longer stem. The major difference was that the N9 was tubeless and running ridiculously low pressures 8 to 14psi while I run 17 psi front and 21 psi rear.

    First impressions with a leg over the bike was that the head tube is much taller but not intrusive. The steering has significant floppiness to it, but the seating position was very similar to my Monkey.

    Once riding, my disappointments set in quickly. The chainstays are WIDE. I rarely hit the chainstays on the Monkey, but with the N9 my heels were hittting the chainstays on just about every rotation. I had to consciously pigeon toe to avoid the strikes. The floppiness of the steering translated to a twitchy ride and the low pressures made the bike even more squirrelly on the trails. I could ride fast but I was correcting quite a bit. The Monkey drives straight and true while the N9 was jetting left and right. The tall front end and slack steering gave some confidence with speed and descents. The wheelbase or footprint felt very similar to the Monkey and the ride very familiar in that aspect. With the low pressures in the tires, it was difficult to judge the stiffness of the frame.

    Even with proper air pressure in the tires, the floppiness and wide chainstays were a deal breaker for me. I only spent about 10 minutes on the N9, but I was glad to get my Monkey back. It made me appreciate the ride that much more.
    WTB: Specialized AWOL frameset, XL

  18. #618
    CS2
    CS2 is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CS2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,300
    Quote Originally Posted by mattbryant2 View Post
    My Thomson clamp was constantly creaking due to dirt finding its way underneath the bottom interior lip, which I concluded was a design flaw. I was actually disappointed with my Thomson post, as well, so I've moved away from the brand entirely. Shame because the parts are so pretty, and I like supporting domestic manufacturing
    I hear you. I'm using a Thomson seat post because it was the only 27.4 I could find when I was putting my last project together. It doesn't really perform better or worse than any other.
    1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1992 Stumpjumpers. 1995 Waterford 1200, 1999 Waterford RSE, plus a garage full of steel frames.

  19. #619
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    17,605
    Lumbee, don't you think that maybe with a wider bar you might have liked the handling on the Nimble better? My thought on the matter at least, is that something in the 720mm+ range would help slow the steering down and give better control. My Paradox I never really noticed wheel flop and I ran 685mm bar for a good while on it, but it really came alive when I got my 750mm FUNN bar. Also you don't mention what fork was on it, I think that's also important since a lot of people are actually running 140mm forks on them and that to me would really slack out the bike and make the steering feel quite floppy, especially if it's one of the older forks with only 46mm offset and not 51mm which I have on my F34. My Prime does feel a bit floppy if I put it down for a few weeks and ride only the KM rigid, but it only takes a few minutes and then everything feels right as rain
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  20. #620
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lumbee1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    Lumbee, don't you think that maybe with a wider bar you might have liked the handling on the Nimble better? My thought on the matter at least, is that something in the 720mm+ range would help slow the steering down and give better control. My Paradox I never really noticed wheel flop and I ran 685mm bar for a good while on it, but it really came alive when I got my 750mm FUNN bar. Also you don't mention what fork was on it, I think that's also important since a lot of people are actually running 140mm forks on them and that to me would really slack out the bike and make the steering feel quite floppy, especially if it's one of the older forks with only 46mm offset and not 51mm which I have on my F34. My Prime does feel a bit floppy if I put it down for a few weeks and ride only the KM rigid, but it only takes a few minutes and then everything feels right as rain
    Rigid steel forks on both bikes (468mm with a 45mm rake). The N9 had a Vassago Odis and my Monkey had a Waltworks. I sold him the fork

    I don't think a wider bar would have made any difference. I agree that a wide bar does change the ride dynamics of a bike but I am actually glad that the bars were the same width. With the specs of each bike being so similar, it allows for a more apples to apples comparison.

    I really wanted to like the N9. I sold my FS bike and almost clicked the "Add to Cart" button on Canfield's website within the same day. Is the N9 worth twice the cost of a new Monkey frame? Absolutely not. Even if the frames were equal in cost, I would still chose the Monkey over the N9. The N9 just isn't my cup of tea.

  21. #621
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lumbee1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,909
    Followup:
    If Surly slackened the head angle a half degree and made the head tube 10mm taller, I think it would really swing some folks away from the slack AM 29'ers. The reason I was looking at the N9 to begin with was because I wanted a more modern geometry that matches my riding style.

  22. #622
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    17,605
    I cannot imagine how the N9 would pedal with a rigid 468mm A2C fork and how many pedal strikes it would have The N9, Yelli, Paradox and the rest were mainly designed around 120mm forks in the 510-520 A2C range with 45mm offset or greater, I would guess I wouldn't like the handling either. Now I've never ridden the N9, but do have a Paradox who's numbers are similar and when I tried it using an older Reba 100mm with 38mm offset it didn't feel great, but when I moved to the 120mm Minute with 20mm TA and 48mm offset it came alive. Do agree to an extent with you having same width bars does help in comparison, but since giving wider bars a try have to say they most definitely suit these slacker bikes more - have no bar narrower than 28"/711mm wide now and that's on the Monkey for commuting, prefer my FUNN Fatboy bars @ 750mm & 785mm wide.

    Sometime in the future I plan to pick up a 500mm A2C rigid for my Monkey as I just don't like how steep and twitchy the HA is with the stock fork, definitely enjoy when I put the 120mm Minute on it which sagged I'd guess is somewhere around 500mm A2C.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??
    MTB Barbados
    My Phantom pics

  23. #623
    Ariolimax columbianus
    Reputation: nativeson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,065
    i owned a n9 before my ogre and the km i own now. first ran it w/an odis fork, 710mm bar. bb bracket was a bit low, handled good, once took it down a 15 mile downhill, alpine trail in oakridge, OR for a good assessment. when i slapped an older 100mm reba on it, i was surprised how floppy the front was when climbing real steep stuff. didn't like it, i got rid of it, picked up an ogre for my camper/tourer, liked it so much i picked up a km.

    to me the km fits my riding style better, i've gone through a bunch of 26" hardtails, fs, and a few 29" hardtails. the km just works for me, i just picked up another fully built new km SS off ebay for my wet winter beater. for the quality, price, craftsmanship, aesthetic i think surly will always have my $$. i live in an area (norcal) where custom steel 29ers are all over, i know a few of the builders, own a custom hunter cx, and really desire a custom 29er. probably could never afford a custom 29er, but i could have a bunch of surly bikes.

  24. #624
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rob1035's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    816
    Sorry to digress, but I must say I didn't really like my N9 with a "short" fork (Niner carbon) at all. Adding a longer fork (Fox 120mm) really made it better.

  25. #625
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lumbee1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    I cannot imagine how the N9 would pedal with a rigid 468mm A2C fork and how many pedal strikes it would have The N9, Yelli, Paradox and the rest were mainly designed around 120mm forks in the 510-520 A2C range with 45mm offset or greater, I would guess I wouldn't like the handling either. Now I've never ridden the N9, but do have a Paradox who's numbers are similar and when I tried it using an older Reba 100mm with 38mm offset it didn't feel great, but when I moved to the 120mm Minute with 20mm TA and 48mm offset it came alive. Do agree to an extent with you having same width bars does help in comparison, but since giving wider bars a try have to say they most definitely suit these slacker bikes more - have no bar narrower than 28"/711mm wide now and that's on the Monkey for commuting, prefer my FUNN Fatboy bars @ 750mm & 785mm wide.

    Sometime in the future I plan to pick up a 500mm A2C rigid for my Monkey as I just don't like how steep and twitchy the HA is with the stock fork, definitely enjoy when I put the 120mm Minute on it which sagged I'd guess is somewhere around 500mm A2C.
    Food for thought
    Chris Canfield

Page 25 of 38 FirstFirst ... 15 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 35 ... 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
  •