Ti Fly + Clyde- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Ti Fly + Clyde

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rhino biker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    114

    Ti Fly + Clyde

    Anyone know if the new Ti Fly is clydeworthy? (e.g., 275 lbs w/ kit) Weight limits?

    Jack

  2. #2
    wannabe corporate shill
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    365
    I'd guess not. I'd think the biggest issue is the front fork (Sid Race). Many have claimed that the Sid Race is a noodle that flexes way too much. I don't have any problems at 165#, but I'll go ahead and assume that you will. Between 165 and 275 is a HUGE difference.

    Others have had issues with the wheels, but I've also had no problems. No clue if you will either.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,487
    I would guess that the frame being Titanium is definitely Clyde worthy. But the rest of the bike I wouldn't think so. I have a Fly 9357 which is similarly equipped. Everything on the bike is super light and in some cases that means not the most durable. The SID is definitely not designed for that kind of weight, but I suppose you could swap it out. The SID can only be pumped up to 180psi, and I think you would need more than that. I weigh 190 and had it at about 150psi. I would guess that the 28 spoke wheels would not be a good idea either.
    2015 Niner Jet 9 Carbon
    2014 Focus Raven 27R
    2017 Lynskey GR250
    2016 Niner BSB
    1987 Haro RS1

  4. #4

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3

    motobecane fly questions

    hi

    i noticed one blogger on here had a jamis dakota and a fly bike. i was just wondering how the geometries compared between the two. im 6'4" and im looking at a 22" ti fly and just wondering if the key measurements are enough.

    thanks

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TXNavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by broncr
    hi

    i noticed one blogger on here had a jamis dakota and a fly bike. i was just wondering how the geometries compared between the two. im 6'4" and im looking at a 22" ti fly and just wondering if the key measurements are enough.

    thanks
    I'm 6'2" with a 34" inseam and had the same question. You can do what I did; go sit on bikes with similar geometry and see if it works for you. Here are some numbers I came up with from bikes I'm familiar with or could test locally for comparison that seem pretty close.

    Large Trek 8500 (or 6000 series, they're identical in geometry)
    Effective Top Tube: 24.61"
    Seat Angle: 73
    Head Angle: 71
    BB Height: 11.69"

    Large Specialized Stumpjumper (19")
    Effective Top Tube: 24.21"
    Seat Angle: 73
    Head Angle: 70.50
    BB Height: 11.97"

    Fly Ti 22"
    Effective Top Tube: 24.10"
    Seat Angle: 73
    Head Angle: 71.5
    BB Height 11.8"
    Stem Length: 120mm

    The Fly's seat tube comes up higher, which is good since I'd imagine you raise your saddle up pretty high like me. The other thing to note is that even though the effective top tube is a tenth to half an inch or so shorter, the slightly steeper head angle will give you a fifth to a third of an inch or so back in actual cockpit length depending on how high your seat post is...or something like that.

    Anyway, if those bikes feel close enough, then you're good to go...but you might want to try the XL sizes of each of those bikes while you're in the store just to see if that's a better fit just in case.

  6. #6

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3
    thanks for all of the info. i appreciate it. i looked at the numbers of those bikes and i actually have been fit at the bike shop. the fit that seemed to work the best to them was the rockhopper 21". that makes me worry a little about the fly sizing because the fly 22 numbers most closely match the rockhopper 19 numbers. do you think this geometry descrepancy is due to the fact that the fly is a more race oriented setup. thanks again.

    ryan

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by broncr
    hi

    i noticed one blogger on here had a jamis dakota and a fly bike. i was just wondering how the geometries compared between the two. im 6'4" and im looking at a 22" ti fly and just wondering if the key measurements are enough.

    thanks
    I am the guy with the Jamis. All the angles of the bikes are similar. But the Jamis is a
    17" frame with a ~22.8" top tube, the Fly is a 18" frame with I think a 22.5" top tube. So the Jamis stretches you out more with a lower standover height. The Ti fly I think has an even shorter top tube. I love my Fly, but I feel like I fit much better on the Jamis.
    2015 Niner Jet 9 Carbon
    2014 Focus Raven 27R
    2017 Lynskey GR250
    2016 Niner BSB
    1987 Haro RS1

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TXNavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    388
    Quote Originally Posted by broncr
    thanks for all of the info. i appreciate it. i looked at the numbers of those bikes and i actually have been fit at the bike shop. the fit that seemed to work the best to them was the rockhopper 21". that makes me worry a little about the fly sizing because the fly 22 numbers most closely match the rockhopper 19 numbers. do you think this geometry descrepancy is due to the fact that the fly is a more race oriented setup. thanks again.

    ryan
    Usually a race geometry is longer and lower in the front. Not sure how they came to their numbers but the 22" seems to fit me.

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.