Bridge is being retooled as I shortened the chainstays. The original sample used the same 26in chainstay bridge. The new one uses a new one. Chainstays are down to 458mm from the 471 on the sample.
Also changed are seat angle and top tube length.
Travel is 140mm
Rear axle is 142x12, Shimano E-Thru-type.
I smell an ultra short stem then and new ultra budget wide bars , at least for me.
just hope I ll be able to fit some some 3x crankset down there that I already have....
else cant do the maths..
Difficult times for a proper new one, very difficult...
and if I manage to fit and my bottom swing sram 7 FD i ll be very lucky.
I smell an ultra short stem then and new ultra budget wide bars , at least for me.
just hope I ll be able to fit some some 3x crankset down there that I already have....
else cant do the maths..
Difficult times for a proper new one, very difficult...
and if I manage to fit and my bottom swing sram 7 FD i ll be very lucky.
Yes to a short stem.
I'm sure a triple will fit.
FD is a high direct mount style.
On a second thought and keeping in mind that is more difficult to change balance on 29er than 26" for known reasons, maybe its better to have the weight a little more rear, than you would except to find in some AM 26ers. Maybe its better to have a little longer top tube with a shorter stem. Αpart from accuracy, it would help the fork on descends in plenty of situations (e.g. less rapid dives) and the OTB, and help rider to find the right balance. On 26" short reach is playful but on 29er its not the case.
A real challenge it would be to see if a 29er 140mm travel sus. system, would handle the rough trails with the same speed as a 150mm 26er before the bottom out of its less travel. Bigger wheels cant replace mm of travel in rough technical terrains, and as speed gets higher on these terrains the angle of attack and impact of a bigger wheel does not play role but a 29er suspension design could help so as to the exhaust of travel happen less easily than some 26"AM frames. (different suspension kinematics)
Funny, the old ISCG 05 url is gone and replaced with this: http://www.iscg.org/iscg-05_standard.pdf
It now shows a 2.5mm recession and is dated 12/11, the old page was from 2005. So I guess ISCG 05 is updated and should be called ISCG 11.
I ve seen some prototype photos of this bike with crest rims and some skinny tires, i think the beavers...ok 29er with this kind of wheelset on a "long travel" 29er might work on some kind of wet uk terrain with a very light rider, but it would be flexy for sure in some many others situations.
Wondering how could be this bike with some real rubber like Hans dampfs to help a little the rear 140mm traver, hope for enough rear clearance for that. Also more stiff rims than crests...right now i m balancing between this frame and an other 160mm 26" frame, but i d like to stick with the big wheels...
Ok, Ed 36mm stanchions might help but would cost more than my car especially in 29er version and with that high cost someone could lean more easily in a real AM-Enduro 26" or 650b...also 36mm means more weight and i find too much 36mm
with only 140mm travel...usual rider will not take full advantage of that kind of stiff stanchions with only 140mm...36mm would mean heavy AM use but you ll be out of travel there... deadlock here
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by brant
...and more info
and with that high cost someone could lean more easily in a real AM-Enduro 26" or 650b...also 36mm means more weight and i find too much 36mm
