Fancy a carbon B?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 61 of 61
  1. #1
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236

    Fancy a carbon B?

    1500g carbon frame with lots of tire clearance.
    Fancy a carbon B?-imag0175_med.jpg
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  2. #2
    bonked
    Reputation: IF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,129
    better picture please. And details
    Quote Originally Posted by banks
    That is one big f'n dude!
    Yes I am!

  3. #3
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by IF52
    better picture please. And details
    I missed the better pics. Hope he comes back by today.

    Has a tapered head tube. All carbon with replaceable Al dropouts for geared or singlespeed use.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    58
    Nice, but rather high Bottom Bracket .. would be silly-high with 650b wheels



    On one carbon 456

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: raganwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    913
    Looks like an Ibis Tranny without the removable/sliding rear triangle.


  6. #6
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,674
    On One 456 carbon

    No moss...

  7. #7
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by nixon_fiend
    Nice, but rather high Bottom Bracket .. would be silly-high with 650b wheels



    On one carbon 456
    With the Bs and a 120mm (26") fork Tim's BB is at 13.2". Right about where I like it. Higher BBs are functional. Better clearance, better agility. Just tougher to get your feet on the ground when you stop (which you are not forced to do as often).
    Last edited by shiggy; 04-18-2011 at 09:22 AM.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  8. #8
    Uncle
    Reputation: Entrenador's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,218
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    With the Bs and a 120mm (26") fork Tim's BB is at 13.2". Right about where I like it. Higher BBs are functional. Better clearance, better agility. Just tougher to get your feet on the ground when you stop (which you are not forced to do as often).
    I've not fully made the leap into the more-is-better camp (more slackness, more travel) just yet, but I am dabbling when I can. I'm wondering if anyone is opting to ride this with just the little 4" of travel. If you are, what's your impression?
    Also, if one of the commonly spotted geo wizards on here could chime in with the approx BB and HTA numbers for b-wheels+100m fox fork, I'd be giddy.

    Thanks.

  9. #9
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Entrenador
    I've not fully made the leap into the more-is-better camp (more slackness, more travel) just yet, but I am dabbling when I can. I'm wondering if anyone is opting to ride this with just the little 4" of travel. If you are, what's your impression?
    Also, if one of the commonly spotted geo wizards on here could chime in with the approx BB and HTA numbers for b-wheels+100m fox fork, I'd be giddy.

    Thanks.
    The 456 is designed to use 4", 5" or 6" forks (456!). Each change of fork length changes the frame angles by about 1-degree.

    With most 4" forks the HTA will be around 69-degrees.

    Most of the time so far I have used the fork at 140mm. Ridden a bit at 95mm and it was a snappier ride, still a stable descender, and a bit more "familiar" as the geometry was closer to what I am use to riding. But I like it slacker, too

    I can get some BB ht numbers next week after I return home, if the Pike will take a 2.35" B. U-Turn 95-140mm. Measuring the HTA will be tougher with the taper head tube.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    With the Bs and a 120mm (26") fork Tim's BB is at 13.2". Right about where I like it. Higher BBs are functional. Better clearance, better agility. Just tougher to get your feet on the ground when you stop (which you are not forced to do as often).
    Maybe where you like it, but if BBs that high didn't have a negative impact on handling, then every bike would have them that high...or higher. Like all geometry numbers, it is a compromise.

    Better agility?
    Seriously?
    How about a lack of stability?

    How about full disclosure? Any motive for pushing the On-One frame here?

  11. #11
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    Maybe where you like it, but if BBs that high didn't have a negative impact on handling, then every bike would have them that high...or higher. Like all geometry numbers, it is a compromise.

    Better agility?
    Seriously?
    How about a lack of stability?

    How about full disclosure? Any motive for pushing the On-One frame here?
    Some riders say they prefer low BBs, no doubt about that. I happen to like high BBs for their benefits and find few cons.

    My experience is they make for a sluggish bike. I have a frame with an EBB and setup with gears, so I first put the EBB down. The ride was dead feeling. Tried it for 3-4 rides, did not feel any better.

    Rotated the EBB to the top and reset my riding position so it was the same relative to the cranks and the bike came alive. Snappy, fast and stable. My best handling bike ever.

    There can be advantages to having a low center of gravity for dead weight, but the rider is not dead weight if he knows what he is doing.


    As shown in my signature I make no secret that I work for On-One and Titus. Tim --who has zero connection with On-One other than owning one--came to us at Sea Otter to show us his 456-B.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  12. #12
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    ...I can get some BB ht numbers next week after I return home, if the Pike will take a 2.35" B. U-Turn 95-140mm. Measuring the HTA will be tougher with the taper head tube.
    WooHoo! The search function worked (in a 2-step search on this site where I am a volunteer moderator for the Oregon and Washington boards). Found that my company-owned Pike coil fork that is on my On-One owned demo bike (my employer) will work with B tires (supplied by the respective tire companies) on the wheels I paid for and built myself.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  13. #13
    www.derbyrims.com
    Reputation: derby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,764
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Some riders say they prefer low BBs, no doubt about that. I happen to like high BBs for their benefits and find few cons.

    My experience is they make for a sluggish bike. I have a frame with an EBB and setup with gears, so I first put the EBB down. The ride was dead feeling. Tried it for 3-4 rides, did not feel any better.

    Rotated the EBB to the top and reset my riding position so it was the same relative to the cranks and the bike came alive. Snappy, fast and stable. My best handling bike ever.

    There can be advantages to having a low center of gravity for dead weight, but the rider is not dead weight if he knows what he is doing.

    ...
    Agreed.

    Well said.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reformed roadie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy

    There can be advantages to having a low center of gravity for dead weight, but the rider is not dead weight if he knows what he is doing.
    Wow...there must be a lot of people who don't know what they are doing.
    Didn't realize you were a riding expert AND a tire expert.

    SInce the pedals are one of three points of contact for a rider, lowering or raising the BB will raise or lower the rider's CG...and there certainly can be advantages to that, no?

    Again, if 13" or 14" high BBs were all that and a bag of chips, then you'd see a lot more HT bikes with them. Maybe you should see if Titus can make 29er Exogrid HT w/ 15" BB. Surely that would be awesome.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,002
    So the 456 fits 650B in all sizes? Is it the same for the steel frame? I want one of these but I'm not going to order one just to try it out.

  16. #16
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by GTR-33
    So the 456 fits 650B in all sizes? Is it the same for the steel frame? I want one of these but I'm not going to order one just to try it out.
    The Bs should fit all frame sizes as the stay length and STAs are the same.

    But only on the carbon frame. The tire clearances are massive on the carbon frames. I fit a 29x2.0 tire in the 456C.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  17. #17
    Fo' Bidniz in da haus
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,281
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    Maybe where you like it, but if BBs that high didn't have a negative impact on handling, then every bike would have them that high...or higher. Like all geometry numbers, it is a compromise.

    Better agility?
    Seriously?
    How about a lack of stability?

    How about full disclosure? Any motive for pushing the On-One frame here?
    lower is better though shiggy is a moderator and has more posts so he must be right

  18. #18
    bonked
    Reputation: IF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,129
    The current BB height on my Soul Hooligan is right at 13" and I dig the way it rides. It is about a 1/2" to a full inch higher than any of my other bikes. But then I'm kind of a big lumbering oaf, so my opinion may not amount to much.
    Quote Originally Posted by banks
    That is one big f'n dude!
    Yes I am!

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    157
    ...I've already got a fancy carbon one!

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=702979

  20. #20
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB-]
    ...I've already got a fancy carbon one!

    http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=702979
    Nice. Way more tire clearance with the 456 Carbon.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    157
    Are you suggesting that more = better? I figure a 1500 full susser frame with a 2# lefty, ample clearance, and racing geometry will suit me just fine!
    How is the clearance at the chainstay/BB, I can see there's plenty at the seatstay.
    What's the purpose for this bike, seems like a very slack HTA for racing, am I seeing it wrong?

  22. #22
    Daniel the Dog
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,760

    No comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Nice. Way more tire clearance with the 456 Carbon.
    The Cannondale would go faster downhill and is just sick.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    58
    It's not for racing .. it's a long travel "thug hardtail" for general 'playing'

    On one do a frame called the whippet - for XC / racing ... but that doesn't fit 650B

  24. #24
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by nixon_fiend
    It's not for racing .. it's a long travel "thug hardtail" for general 'playing'

    On one do a frame called the whippet - for XC / racing ... but that doesn't fit 650B
    Actually, it does. We fit Tim's B wheel in the Whippet at Sea Otter. Lots of room.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  25. #25
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by MTB-]
    Are you suggesting that more = better? I figure a 1500 full susser frame with a 2# lefty, ample clearance, and racing geometry will suit me just fine!
    How is the clearance at the chainstay/BB, I can see there's plenty at the seatstay.
    What's the purpose for this bike, seems like a very slack HTA for racing, am I seeing it wrong?
    All rear tire clearances are huge. The 456 is designed as a long travel (hardcore) hard tail. really a do it most frame rather than pure race.

    With a 4" fork the frame angles are near XC "race" (69-70 HTA).
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    58
    Shiggy - Is that so ?? That's interesting as I called On One here in the UK about the whippet as soon as the frames came into production ... The chap I spoke to admittedly only had a vague idea about 650B but was reasonably confident that it wouldn't fit the whippet.

    Any chance you could post pics? "Lots of Room" means different things to different people - and sadly the UK is a mud-fest 6 months of the year! There's no way I could ride half the conversions I see on this site without grinding to a halt (or grinding through a chainstay)

    If you reckon the whippet is properly B-able then it's almost a definite purchase for me.

    Thank you for the info

  27. #27
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by nixon_fiend
    Shiggy - Is that so ?? That's interesting as I called On One here in the UK about the whippet as soon as the frames came into production ... The chap I spoke to admittedly only had a vague idea about 650B but was reasonably confident that it wouldn't fit the whippet.

    Any chance you could post pics? "Lots of Room" means different things to different people - and sadly the UK is a mud-fest 6 months of the year! There's no way I could ride half the conversions I see on this site without grinding to a halt (or grinding through a chainstay)

    If you reckon the whippet is properly B-able then it's almost a definite purchase for me.

    Thank you for the info
    I will post a pic ASAP. My laptop (where the pics are) just went wonky on me and I am still on the road.

    I have spent 20-some years riding in western Oregon where mud is also a way of life. The clearance is much better than 99% of metal frames with 26" wheels.

    Of course this is not an official endorsement of using the Whippet with 650B wheels.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  28. #28
    artistic...
    Reputation: colker1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,571
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Some riders say they prefer low BBs, no doubt about that. I happen to like high BBs for their benefits and find few cons.

    My experience is they make for a sluggish bike. I have a frame with an EBB and setup with gears, so I first put the EBB down. The ride was dead feeling. Tried it for 3-4 rides, did not feel any better.

    Rotated the EBB to the top and reset my riding position so it was the same relative to the cranks and the bike came alive. Snappy, fast and stable. My best handling bike ever.

    There can be advantages to having a low center of gravity for dead weight, but the rider is not dead weight if he knows what he is doing.


    As shown in my signature I make no secret that I work for On-One and Titus. Tim --who has zero connection with On-One other than owning one--came to us at Sea Otter to show us his 456-B.
    i have to agree.. i always bought into lower BB but my oldest bike, the one i replaced for being too funky geometry wise.. is my best handling bike by a large margin. tall BB(12.5, steep head angle(72 and long cstays(17.25). PLus i have it set w/ drop bars. i don't know why but it is way more comfrtable, quick and adept at technical trails. My other bikes are the same size, same top tube, same wheelbase and i have some nice bikes to compare.
    WTB: Bomber Z2 1 1/8 steerer, in good to excellent shape OR bomber rebuild kit.

  29. #29
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    I will post a pic ASAP. My laptop (where the pics are) just went wonky on me and I am still on the road.

    I have spent 20-some years riding in western Oregon where mud is also a way of life. The clearance is much better than 99% of metal frames with 26" wheels.

    Of course this is not an official endorsement of using the Whippet with 650B wheels.
    Quasi-Moto in a Whippet
    Fancy a carbon B?-whippet_b2.jpg
    Lots of room.
    Fancy a carbon B?-whippet_b3.jpg
    A little tighter at the chainstays but you can still get a finger in there at the narrowest point.
    Fancy a carbon B?-whippet_b1.jpg

    Of course this is not an official endorsement of using the Whippet with 650B wheels.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  30. #30
    Not dead yet, just playin
    Reputation: ohpossum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    910
    Shig, any word on a smaller Whippet frame? Something with a ~545mm ETT like the small Inbred..

    op
    www.msmtb.org - Mississippi Mountain Biking

  31. #31
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by ohpossum
    Shig, any word on a smaller Whippet frame? Something with a ~545mm ETT like the small Inbred..

    op
    Doubtful there will be any carbon frames smaller than a 16" (589TT)
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  32. #32
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    456-B Carbon

    With Panaracer CG All Conditions AM 26x2.35 tires, fork at 95mm travel (BB ht 320mm)
    Fancy a carbon B?-img_1614_med.jpg
    (saddle is lower than my full height for more compact pics)

    With Pacenti Neo-Moto 650Bx2.35 tires, fork at 95mm (BB ht 330mm)
    Fancy a carbon B?-img_1618_med.jpg

    Tire clearances with the Neo-Moto.
    Fancy a carbon B?-img_1624_med.jpg
    Fancy a carbon B?-img_1621_med.jpg
    Fancy a carbon B?-img_1625_med.jpg

    Rode it yesterday with the fork at 120mm. Lots of fun.

    Note: changing the fork travel from 95 to 140mm slackens the frame angles by ~2-degrees and raises the BB 15mm.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    58
    That's pretty conclusive! Thanks for taking the time to deliver the shots

  34. #34
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by nixon_fiend
    That's pretty conclusive! Thanks for taking the time to deliver the shots
    n_f, this is the 456, not the Whippet. I do not have the latter here to compare. I do think it is a bit tighter in the Whippet.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    58
    I realise that, I was just glad to see 650B wheels actually in a 456c !

  36. #36
    bikeboatbrewski
    Reputation: scottybinwv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,396
    Looks sweet for a hard tail.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alex(K)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    119
    [QUOTE=shiggy]456-B Carbon

    Hi Shiggy,

    If I were to fancy a ti 650B, would the 456 ti fit the bill?

    That's a sweet looking frame...

    Cheers,
    Alex

  38. #38
    ride more
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,626
    Very interesting

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    515
    yea but look how high that BB is!

  40. #40
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    [QUOTE=alex(K)]
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    456-B Carbon

    Hi Shiggy,

    If I were to fancy a ti 650B, would the 456 ti fit the bill?

    That's a sweet looking frame...

    Cheers,
    Alex
    Does not look like Bs will fit in the Ti frame.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alex(K)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    119
    Bummer, thanks Shiggy!

  42. #42
    dirtbag
    Reputation: ranier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,488
    Shiggy, are the 456 carbon frames available with horizontal dropouts for SS? Are they even available? I don't see them on the website.
    Amolan

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18
    Ranier, the horiz. dropouts are available. Call OnOne, or Peter at Unreal Cycles.

  44. #44
    High Alpine Adventure
    Reputation: DaGoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,837
    Quote Originally Posted by reformed roadie
    Maybe you should see if Titus can make 29er Exogrid HT w/ 15" BB. Surely that would be awesome.
    Yeah, you're a roadie so what would we expect... I have a 29er Exo-grid Racer-X and the thing I HATE (but not enough to sell it) about it is the 12" BB height. It SUCKS. I have to use a lot of "crank conciousness" to keep from smacking the cranks in the tech sections.

    Now my Dale Rush-B went from 12.5" to 13.25" with the B setup and it has become a greatly improved ride. And My Enduro-SL with the 14" BB. It is without a doubt one of the most STABLE descenders you will ever ride.

    So what's your point? Oh yeah, that's right, you're a roadie!
    Last edited by DaGoat; 05-15-2011 at 07:29 AM.
    Dug-Da-Goat

    Something changes at 12,000'
    ...so welcome to the Odyssey!

    Building your trails at FooMTB

  45. #45
    High Alpine Adventure
    Reputation: DaGoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaybo
    The Cannondale would go faster downhill and is just sick.
    Not as fast as this one! Now if Shiggy and company would just make a Carbon-X 650b with a 13.5" BB height I'd buy it in a heartbeat!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fancy a carbon B?-img_4305w.jpg  

    Fancy a carbon B?-img_4316w.jpg  

    Fancy a carbon B?-img_4309w.jpg  

    Dug-Da-Goat

    Something changes at 12,000'
    ...so welcome to the Odyssey!

    Building your trails at FooMTB

  46. #46
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by ranier
    Shiggy, are the 456 carbon frames available with horizontal dropouts for SS? Are they even available? I don't see them on the website.
    Yes, you can get it with either.

    Spares here: http://on-one.co.uk/i/q/FSOOSWAP/on-...ceable-dropout
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    Quasi-Moto in a Whippet
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	whippet_b2.jpg 
Views:	2161 
Size:	152.2 KB 
ID:	611059
    Lots of room.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	whippet_b3.jpg 
Views:	2067 
Size:	82.2 KB 
ID:	611060
    A little tighter at the chainstays but you can still get a finger in there at the narrowest point.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	whippet_b1.jpg 
Views:	2204 
Size:	88.1 KB 
ID:	611061

    Of course this is not an official endorsement of using the Whippet with 650B wheels.
    Shiggy, from what you've seen of the Quasi-Moto on a Whippet, and what I know you know on tires, would you feel reasonably confident in fitting these tires into the rear of the Whippet?

    1. NeoMoto 2.1
    2. NeoMoto 2.3 (my personal target)
    3. WTB Wolverine 650/2.2 (bonus volume)

    Appreciate the replies & FWIW I already own 355 650rims - any given tire might be a touch less voluminous.

    I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on a HT frame (have wheels & bits). Prime candidates are D-Jab, Bokor, Whippet & 456.

  48. #48
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by redbarn View Post
    Shiggy, from what you've seen of the Quasi-Moto on a Whippet, and what I know you know on tires, would you feel reasonably confident in fitting these tires into the rear of the Whippet?

    1. NeoMoto 2.1
    2. NeoMoto 2.3 (my personal target)
    3. WTB Wolverine 650/2.2 (bonus volume)

    Appreciate the replies & FWIW I already own 355 650rims - any given tire might be a touch less voluminous.

    I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on a HT frame (have wheels & bits). Prime candidates are D-Jab, Bokor, Whippet & 456.
    I had the Quasi in the Whippet for 2 minutes in April.

    Guessing the Neos would be fine. Never seen the WTB.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,018
    That's a good deal of room on the 456! Very cool. I'm more of a Whippet kind of guy, but could see some folks having a good old time on that 456.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    108
    Thx. The WTB is rather monstrous. Definately the biggest volume, and more importantly, tallest height 650b tire in the world right now. Wolverine fit would be a major bonus on any 26' frame.

    As long as the Whippet fits a Neo, I'm pretty happy. The seatstay clearance look quite good, though things are a bit dicey at the chainstay. I reckon a guy could always machine a new set of dropouts to add a few mm and perhaps drop as well. CAD design skills are the easy part for me.

  51. #51
    A waste of time it is is
    Reputation: emu26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,458
    shiggy could you please tell me the bb height of a 456 20" frame with a 120mm fork and 650b wheels?

    Cheers

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18
    With a fox 120 and neo moto 2.3f, 2.1r, the bb on mine measures 13 3/8. Got your back Shig.

  53. #53
    A waste of time it is is
    Reputation: emu26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,458
    thanks for that loamshreder, stihacker came back to me earlier today in another thread with a similar height on his 130mm fork.

    Sounds promising, just need to find a decent fork in my budget.

    Thanks again for the reply.

  54. #54
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by emu26 View Post
    thanks for that loamshreder, stihacker came back to me earlier today in another thread with a similar height on his 130mm fork.

    Sounds promising, just need to find a decent fork in my budget.

    Thanks again for the reply.
    This reply (earlier in this thread) also answers it: http://forums.mtbr.com/8009435-post32.html
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  55. #55
    A waste of time it is is
    Reputation: emu26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,458
    thanks shiggy, I read the whole thing late at night and then came back to it early the next morning and thought I'd read it somewhere but couldn't find it the second time around.

    Thanks again.

    Fork recommendations? I believe you recommended a Revelation in a thread last year, any change to that? I would like travel adjustment for this one so probably looking at the dual position Rev or the Talas but am seeing some negative reports about the Talas travel adjust. I also like the Rev because I believe it is manufacturer cleared for 650b, which this build will likely end up at.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,192
    X-Fusion now has an on the fly travel adjust Velvet fork available for 2012 and the price is not bad.

    Universal Cycles -- X-Fusion Velvet RL2 DLA Fork 2012
    2016 Trek Remedy 8 29er
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b SOLD

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    493
    Built mine with a fox 36 talas 100-150 thnking id love to play around with travel, and just open it up for techy dissents and mountain riding, dial down for local rides... Ended up finding that on my 456c with the 650b is TONS more fun and fast (also now a SS) than with 26", and for me i think the bike is best with 120mm up front. So i took off the Talas, and shaved 1.5# by putting on a 2010 revelation race 20mm, that just so barely clears a neomoto 2.1. Def pretty stoked right now on that bike.... Super fast, and hadles exceptionally well, and i think it is somewhere just south of 24 lbs....yet not afraid to get some air/drops...

  58. #58
    A waste of time it is is
    Reputation: emu26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,458
    Quote Originally Posted by skidad View Post
    X-Fusion now has an on the fly travel adjust Velvet fork available for 2012 and the price is not bad.
    Has that been available for a while or is x-fusion the only company that releases their 2012 products during 2012 and not half way through 2011? Any idea of weight?

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,192
    Quote Originally Posted by emu26 View Post
    Has that been available for a while or is x-fusion the only company that releases their 2012 products during 2012 and not half way through 2011? Any idea of weight?
    Pretty sure it's a new for 2012 fork. Yeah, X-Fusion doesn't seems to be 1/2 a year ahead like so many brands. Many places didn't have 2012 stock until May.

    Claimed 3.7lbs for the 9mm/1-1/8" steerer tube model. Guessing 4lb ish? for taper DLA fork.
    2016 Trek Remedy 8 29er
    2013 Banshee Spitfire V2 650b SOLD

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4
    Will a 650b wheel fit in a Inbred 26er frame with verticale drop outs?

    /Ulrik

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,025
    How about an On one 650 b specific model w/ correct BB height and sliding drop outs for single speed.

Members who have read this thread: 0

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

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.