96er frames?
June 9th, 2006 by Tim GrahlI was just wondering how many other manufacturers out there build 96er frames? I’ve seem the carver and read the reviews, any others?
– Pete
Possibly Related Articles:
- The Carver 96er Build
- Questions on the 96er
- Trek Confirms “96″er Project
- Trek and Specialized
- 29/26 Hybrid Update
What is RSS?
Get our articles in your inbox:
Trek will make the 69er soon…
http://www2.trekbikes.com/us/en/Mountain/Singleminded/Static_Articles/Travis_Big_Pink.php
Trek is threatening to launch a 69er (same thing) for 2007.
How many offerings do we need?
Remember, every XC 26″ hardtail can be a 69/96 rigid bike. If it’s built for a longer fork, a short 29″ fork might fit too.
Remains the question…why you ask?
might is the key word here. the forks will fit, but how about geometry? Putting a 29er fork on a 26er will certainly slacken things, a lot. other reasons: lighter weight, stiffer, stronger rear wheel, better acceleration, etc. Now I won’t be riding one, but I can see the logic behind it. Just not for me.
Awesome theoretical advantages that are insignificant (weight, under a pound) or easy to overcome (wheel strength, add 4 spokes).
Insignificant to you, but maybe not to someone else. Travis Brown seems to love his.
Someone said that he had only commented on rear wheel strangth. He uses lighter Bontrager hubs, which come in 28-hole…
I built one the other day w/my old Strong 26″ss, a Pace 26″ rigid carbon fork and the 29″ front WTB wheel off my Orbea hardtail. By using the 26″ fork (still had plenty of clearance for a 2.3″ WTB tire) , it compensated the taller 29″ wheel and kept the ride height lower and allowed for quick but predictable handling. I loved it.
FYI Travis B. raced his in a cross race last fall here in CO. He won, not necessarily because of his bike choice, but it sure didn’t hinder him.
Travis Brown seems to be the common denominator for everything good about a “96er”/”69er”/ 50-50 bike. Take Travis out of the equation and what do we have? I’m willing to bet that any bike within reason would not hinder Mr. Brown.
Here is an interesting thought. How much does Mr. Brown’s rear wheel weigh? Could a significantly strong wheel that weighs the same amount be executed in 29 inch size? This would be the answer to what Mr. Brown’s objections to 29″ rear wheels would seem to be. No? Well, that and the fact that his employer makes some of the flexiest 29 inch wheels you can buy.
Actually, his employer sells only one 29″ SS wheelset (his 69er is SS) as part of a complete bike, but in that model (RIG) it uses a 32-hole rear hub. Just not very high-end (heavy) or something Bontrager may be very proud of.
It will be super-easy to spec a DT240 SS hub, 32 spokes and a Mustang rim, to end up with a wheel that matches his 26″ 28-hole (gearie?) rear wheel for stiffness.
For a super-strong SS’er like Travis Brown, being picky about rear wheels for stiffness is very understandable. His solution just seems a bit far-fetched, copy a design marketed by a direct-selling competitor of the Trek sell-through-dealers empire. The 69 press he’s been getting is all Carver 96′ers could ever wish for in free publicity and support.
people assume 28 hole 2 cross wheels are flexier than a 32 hole 3 cross wheel. simply not true. a 28 hole 2 cross wheel is as stiff and usually stiffer than a 32 hole 3 cross wheel. Just becuase it has more spokes doesn’t mean it’s stiffer. I ride 28h Bonty Race Lite wheels, weigh 220lbs, and have no issues with stiffness or durability.
Castellano has the Silk Ti available as a 96.
Two different wheels. Two different tubes. Plus you lose out on the advantages of a 29″ wheel in the rear which includes increased rear wheel traction in a variety of situations. The advantages of a 29″ wheel are not limited to just the front wheel.
It’s a neat experiment, but in real world situations why bother?
A coworker of mine rides a mutant 96er (a rigid Kona steel frame) single speed. He encountered two big problems using a regular unicrown fork with a 9er wheel up front, 1)clearance , 2) fork trail.
In order to not slacken the head angle too much they wound up using a fork bending jig so the bike would maintain it’s original head tube angle. This is why, I think, some of the after market 26/29 carbon forks from Bontrager, Ritchey, On One, etc., are kind off iffy because they may still slacken the head tube.
Next was tire selection. He’s running a Specialized FastTrak tire up front, not the biggest knob or widest casing width tire out there by any stretch of the imagination but even then it’s a pretty tight fit and there’s maybe a 1/2 between the top of the tire and the bottom of the fork crown.
For us guys on the West Coast it’s not that big of deal but for you guys who live where it rains and snows it’s something to think about.
Now, for the ride. It rides great! Stable at speed but not washy or sluggish. Cleatus can keep up with guys with full suss bikes even on just gnarly rutted out, rocky single track.
Compared with some 26×26, 29×29 single speeds this mutant beast has very good shock absorption but a quicker acceleration with the rear wheel than a 29×29 and inspires the kind of riding that’s a bit harder to do with a 26×26 rigid bike.
Is there a solution ? Maybe if pressed the guys at Willits, Sycip, or even Steve Potts could make something more appropriate if you want to make that conversion.
http://www.sycip.com
http://willitsbikes.com
http://www.stevepottsbicycles.com