29er hardtail with 157mm rear spacing.- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,428

    29er hardtail with 157mm rear spacing.

    Are there any off the shelf 29er/27.5+ hardtails with 157mm rear spacing? I've talked to several custom builders that will do it, but I'm not having any luck finding something that isn't custom.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,043
    Quote Originally Posted by OldHouseMan View Post
    Are there any off the shelf 29er/27.5+ hardtails with 157mm rear spacing? I've talked to several custom builders that will do it, but I'm not having any luck finding something that isn't custom.
    is Ventana one of the builders?
    breezy shade

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,428
    Unfortunately, no. I have given up on Ventana. My emails have gone unanswered and they never seem to pick up the phone.

    I have spoken to 44 Bikes, Waltworks, Sklar and Breadwinner.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: azjonboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,738
    Why 157 on a hardtail?
    If you're lucky enough to be in the mountains,
    you're lucky enough.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    564
    I think Chromag will do a custom back end on their locally welded frames.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,428
    Quote Originally Posted by azjonboy View Post
    Why 157 on a hardtail?
    Compatibility. I'm thinking about picking up a Pivot Firebird.

    Quote Originally Posted by NS-NV View Post
    I think Chromag will do a custom back end on their locally welded frames.
    I asked, they won't.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    65
    RSD sergeant v3 has 157 spacing

  8. #8
    WillWorkForTrail
    Reputation: Cotharyus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,862
    Have you talk to Binary - I bet they'd hook something like that up. Not off the shelf stuff at all, of course, but their Chumbarosa looks pretty sweet.

  9. #9
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,487
    Quote Originally Posted by azjonboy View Post
    Why 157 on a hardtail?
    It builds a stiffer and stronger rear wheel, with no downsides. A better question is why not use 157 spacing?
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  10. #10
    Occasionally engagedÖ
    Reputation: Ptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,696
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    It builds a stiffer and stronger rear wheel, with no downsides. A better question is why not use 157 spacing?
    A Q-factor so large you have to pedal bow-legged? That's a no-go for many...
    "The plural of anecdote is not data." -- Attributed to various people in a variety of forms, but always worth remembering...

  11. #11
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptor View Post
    A Q-factor so large you have to pedal bow-legged? That's a no-go for many...
    You're thinking of unicycles. Superboost uses a 73mm bb and cranks. No downsides.



    Actually, i have an 83mm bb on my custom hardtail. I personally don't care about Q factor, so we decided it was the best way to cram a huge tire back there and keep it simple, light, and stiff.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,146
    How stiff do we want our wheels on a hardtail? Iím not being an azz here, genuine question. I was Inquiring about some carbon hoops for a hardtail and I was advised to go with aluminum since the carbon wheels would be harsh.

    Maybe good for a 29+ but what other scenario would we want a stiffer wheel?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by scottzg View Post
    It builds a stiffer and stronger rear wheel, with no downsides.
    It does?

    Where can I find this factual information?

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,146
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    It does?

    Where can I find this factual information?
    Even if it does, I donít see much value in building uber stiff wheels for a HT. People buy carbon or steel frames to get some compliance, seems counterintuitive to throw on a set of extra stiff wheels unless running + tires. Even then, how much stiffer-er can a 45id wheel get?

    Maybe 157 on a full suspension frame will allow for better engineering for the linkages to add stiffness which sounds like a benefit.

    But for future proofing an expensive frame, Iím all for it.

  15. #15
    WillWorkForTrail
    Reputation: Cotharyus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,862
    The stiffness generated by wider flange spacing is a lateral stiffness, which is good, not a vertical stiffness, which is going to be in the rims rather than in the way they're built. So to me, I think it's a matter of how you approach the whole thing really. To me, I'd be looking at what the most likely future thing is. Right now, I don't see the boost standard going away for a while, simply because of Q factors and, honestly, necessity. Boost seems stiff enough for most stuff but downhill and maybe heavy duty enduro stuff.

    Of course, the OP has a 157 bike and wants the rear on the hardtail for compatibility with that. So that ought to be enough.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Cotharyus View Post
    Of course, the OP has a 157 bike and wants the rear on the hardtail for compatibility with that. So that ought to be enough.
    100% Well shame on me... i got caught up with the last few comments and I completely forgot that THIS was the whole point of the OP.

  17. #17
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,144
    Quote Originally Posted by azjonboy View Post
    Why 157 on a hardtail?
    With 157 and the correct crank/chain-ring, I would assume one could have an aggressive 29er hard tail that will also fit a 26x3.8" tire out back (maybe even 27.5 x 3.8?).

    That could be a good bike for someone that doesn't want full fatty, but still wants to be able to ride on groomed or packed snow trails... while also having 29 x 2.5-2.6 for aggressive gnartail riding during the summer.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  18. #18
    mbtr member
    Reputation: scottzg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,487
    Quote Originally Posted by mnigro View Post
    Even if it does, I donít see much value in building uber stiff wheels for a HT. People buy carbon or steel frames to get some compliance, seems counterintuitive to throw on a set of extra stiff wheels unless running + tires. Even then, how much stiffer-er can a 45id wheel get?

    Maybe 157 on a full suspension frame will allow for better engineering for the linkages to add stiffness which sounds like a benefit.

    But for future proofing an expensive frame, Iím all for it.
    It's the wider spoke bracing angle that's of value; it makes a big difference in wheel durability. If for whatever reason you want a flexy wheel you can get that with rim and spoke selection. Your flexy wheel will still be less apt to lose tension under load.

    148 boost exists because it's about as wide as you can go with a FD and 50mm chainline. With 1x there's no reason not to move the chainring outward and build a better wheel. It doesn't have to affect Q factor, it's just better design through optimization.

    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    With 157 and the correct crank/chain-ring, I would assume one could have an aggressive 29er hard tail that will also fit a 26x3.8" tire out back (maybe even 27.5 x 3.8?).

    That could be a good bike for someone that doesn't want full fatty, but still wants to be able to ride on groomed or packed snow trails... while also having 29 x 2.5-2.6 for aggressive gnartail riding during the summer.
    That's what i have. Can't quite squeeze THAT much tire back there, because it wasn't a priority. Ample room for 29x2.8, big chainrings, and short chainstays though.
    "Things that are complex are not useful, Things that are useful are simple."
    Mikhail Kalashnikov

  19. #19
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    14,761
    Quote Originally Posted by mnigro View Post
    How stiff do we want our wheels on a hardtail?

    That's one way to look at it.

    Another is that if you start with wider hub flanges, you can use lighter spokes and rim and still end up with the same wheel stiffness and durability.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    With 157 and the correct crank/chain-ring, I would assume one could have an aggressive 29er hard tail that will also fit a 26x3.8" tire out back (maybe even 27.5 x 3.8?).
    ^^^^This!!!!

    27.5x3.8/4.0 is definitely achievable on a <65mm rim. I found one bike, the RSD Sergeant, but unfortunately they ruined it with a 83mm BB and cranks that give ~185mm Q factor. But they could have achieved the same with 73mm and a flipped ring and Q of 168mm, which is near normal. Maybe the crank was hitting the stay but that could be fixed with a proper yoke and bend.

    I don't want it for snow, but rather winter riding in SW deserts and Baja (sand).

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by OldHouseMan View Post
    Are there any off the shelf 29er/27.5+ hardtails with 157mm rear spacing? I've talked to several custom builders that will do it, but I'm not having any luck finding something that isn't custom.
    RSD Sergeant V3. Kona Big Kahuna had 157 for a couple years (now discontinued). Both of these use a 83mm BB.

    I expect there will be more next year, but who knows. Even Shimano's new microspline hubs have this option so I suspect it will be common eventually. I'm thinking about taking a steel 148 frame with a 73mm BB and cold setting it, but maybe I'll just wait til next year and see what's available.

    Someone mentioned this place. Waltly - Makers of custom high-end titanium bicycle frames, forks and small parts

    Custom Ti from China for ~$900 shipped.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: coke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,577

    29er hardtail with 157mm rear spacing.

    My wife has a Chumba Ursa with 157 rear spacing. They arenít shown on their website anymore, but you could give them a call.

    I have a rigid bike and a full suspension, both with 157.

    Itís nice having the ability to swap wheels between the 3 bikes


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by coke View Post
    My wife has a Chumba Ursa with 157 rear spacing. They arenít shown on their website anymore, but you could give them a call.

    I have a rigid bike and a full suspension, both with 157.

    Itís nice having the ability to swap wheels between the 3 bikes


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Chumba Ursa went to boost for their next gen. I think they went to 157 when the alternative was 142. Come 148, they joined the regular boost club.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bubba13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,042
    Knolly has stated they are working on a steel and possibly Ti hard tail with 157 spacing. Not sure where it will land in terms of target use. I'm hoping it at least will have the option for rear rack mounting and built for trail to aggressive trail use. 29 x 2.6 to 2.8 tires?
    Portland Off Road Navagators

Similar Threads

  1. 157mm spacing whole line-up?
    By F.N.G in forum Knolly
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-21-2018, 06:52 AM
  2. Convert Hope Pro 2 EVO 150mm rear hub to 157mm?
    By mdg3d in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 08:11 PM
  3. which 157mm rear hub for podium?
    By cfrench in forum Knolly
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-09-2013, 12:22 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-12-2013, 05:07 PM
  5. TREK SESSION 9.9 REAR HUB 157mm ?
    By yeti-j in forum Trek
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-25-2012, 08:34 PM

Members who have read this thread: 36

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.