KONA 69er Stinky Deelux- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Life Is Short
    Reputation: fatcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,569

    KONA 69er Stinky Deelux

    I bought this new 1999 stinky deelux frame and added a 2011 fox van, marzocchi 55 fork and it seemed fine but seemed so boring too. So did some measuring and found out I could
    adequately put a 100mm 29er fork and wheel to the front. Now the damn thing screams.
    It loves to climb and descend like crazy. Sure the turning radius is different but its a 29er. Lost 60mm of fork travel, gained 3" of front wheel diameter.
    The bottom bracket gained a 1/2 inch height and I have to slide the saddle back now. Big deal. Its a great project.

    Note for others thinking about the 69er conversion:
    It wont work on a 4" rear travel bike though. Only 5" and up because of the fork compression--it will hit the bottom tube, unless you put a rigid 29er fork up front and that blows. Hardtails will give you a sloppy rear end because the front will travel through things a lot easier as the rear will try to keep up with big brother and bounce around too much---but thats fine if you can deal with it. Also a suspension fork for a hard tail is limited to 80mm and thats too much.
    I mean fully compressed an 80mm may hit the bottom tube. A rigid fork will be better for a hard tail conversion. Anyways viva 69er.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails KONA 69er Stinky Deelux-dscf7663-2-.jpg  

    KONA 69er Stinky Deelux-dscf7664-2-.jpg  

    KONA 69er Stinky Deelux-dscf7665-2-.jpg  

    Last edited by fatcat; 05-23-2011 at 01:35 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,493
    It's certainly steepened the head angle up.Still be quite slack for 29er. Have you still got 7" on the rear.
    I've got a Trance x modded to 5.5" rear and 100mm 29er up front.I can lean back going DH and glide the fork. You must be able rip down, leaning back, coasting on the back wheel.

  3. #3
    Life Is Short
    Reputation: fatcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,569
    Hahaha, no there was no such thing as 7" back in 1999. this bike has only 5" back there.
    And people thought that was a lot! Like your Trance, it is perfect as a 69er. However your frame is better because you have that extra
    wiggle room for your fork. I have like only 1/2"-3/4" between the front tire & the bottom tube if the fork ever bottoms out. YOU have at least an
    1-1-1/2" or or more. Because your bike was probably spec'd with a 140-145mm fork and mine was 130mm (they didnt invent a 140mm fork back then) so the ratio between the tire/bottom tube is closer with this Stinky than your Giant.

    5.5" rear travel bikes are actually the best ones for 69 conversions
    because of the ratio from front to back. Like you said, the bike rides a lot better
    with the bigger front tire. I like it because the rear rotation stays the same for steeper climbs. A rear 29er gives your legs a workout before you start getting any momentum.

    Converting a 7" rear travel would be a waste because it defeats everything you bought a free ride bike for in my opinion. I have two
    late model Stinkys in the garage and I won't convert them and also they don't make a 29er 100-140mm fork in a 1.5? Not sure.
    Post your bike, I'd like to see it.

    PS----I dont want to sound like a hater but I read and hear so many questions and doubts about whether a 650b and certain tires
    clear 26er forks... I say go 29er and forget that stuff!
    Last edited by fatcat; 05-23-2011 at 12:11 AM.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,493
    Mine was originally specd with 120mm front and rear. Maybe it has a slacker head angle than the stinky and I have a fork with larger G2 offset crown as I still have 1.5" clearance when fork is compressed.
    The rear end has been upped to 5.5" with a longer 7.5 x 2 shock with shim mod to lower air sleeve volume.
    Set up gives head angle about 68.5 to 69 degrees and running a fork with g2 offset to quicken steering up a bit.My Scott Scale 29er at 69.5 degrees is a bit quicker in the steering with the same fork.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails KONA 69er Stinky Deelux-img_0901.jpg  


  5. #5
    TNC
    TNC is offline
    noMAD man
    Reputation: TNC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,059
    fatcat, I would disagree with your assessment that you can't make a 69'er out of a 4" bike. We have an older carbon Trek Fuel at our shop with a DUC32 and 29'er wheel, and it clears the downtube and works very well overall. In fact I would say many of these shorter travel frames will be better candidate for a 69'er depending a bit on the fork used and the given frame. We did a 69'er Maverick ML8, a 6.5" bike like my Nomad. The reduced travel in the front did not match well with the rear travel in that case. The big wheel did not make up for the lost travel. Our modded Trek 69'er with 4" of travel actually made a better overall bike with a more balanced suspension feel.

    The big improvement on both these bikes came in the form of cornering. While there was a slacker head angle, the footprint apparently more than made up for it by providing some great cornering traction. You could lean them both very aggressively. There was a very noticeable rollover improvement, but it diminished a good deal as you really got into rougher and rougher terrain with aggressive riding. I don't think wheelsize always trumps travel. There's a balance to be had there just about like everything else in bicycling.

    And fatcat, the fact that the 650B is not hugely taller than the 26" is both its benefit and its curse. You get the marginal height benefit without having to design a whole new system to deal with it if you look around at how many forks and frames the tire will already fit. It's one reason that manufacturers probably aren't running in droves to make frames and forks specific to the 650B. Still it's a noticeable advantage that really works without a lot of heartburn. I get to run two of my 160mm forks on my Nomad and Bullit with the tallest wheel/tire combo available without losing any travel.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,493
    I agree the big wheel doesn't make up for lack of travel on the big stuff.I built my Trance up purely to get the benefit of cornering grip of the 29er wheel. As a bonus it is a fun trail bike with it's better DH performance than my Anthem x 29er. You can lean back in to the rear end[commencal style] and take more of the load off the front. In effect upping the travel of the front fork.
    It's no where near as efficient on the climbs[ must use propedal] as the AX but the larger rear shock allows you to pedal easier over tree roots and rocks.
    I'm wary of cracking the frame on the lighter Ax so It just gets used for endurance races.

    Neither are anywhere as good on the big stuff as my Super Trail or Wolf Ridge[ converting to full 650B]

  7. #7
    Life Is Short
    Reputation: fatcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,569
    the only thing that worries me about 650b is that the tire choice is always has to be researched big time
    so i just went with 29er fork, wheel, tire combo

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.