Comments on: Three Things Your Future 29″er Should Have

By: John from Cape Town

John from Cape Town — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:41:48 +0000

Just to get things back on track…….
I agree fully with the 3 future must haves on your 29er, better tracking and stiffer steering are issues that have become more apparent on 29ers. Cannondale addressed the exact same issue on the 26 inch platform with the Lefty, both fork and head tube stiffness are addressed with it. The Caffeine 29er frame was my choice in terms of handling and feel.

I have ridden and trained for 2 Cape Epics, doing my third next year, tubeless tires are a no-brainer, best available combo I have found for my 29er thus far has been stans rims , Stans tape and Hutchinson Pythons tubeless, a bit narrow, slippery and have a short lifespan but fast and resilient. I wouldn’t choose that on a 26 inch bike in fact have always used Mavic 819’s and Maxxis CrossMark tubeless on 26 inch. I have found Stans sealant to seal best (particularly sidewalls) but has shortest lifespan so has to be replaced every 3 months.

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:58:06 +0000

That SnS coupled chainstay looked pretty nice. Pardon my ignorance, but did elevated chainstays go by the wayside? Maybe they only work well as part of a suspension system?

>Didn’t those old Sweet Wings cranks use a similar setup to the Ultra-Torque?

Apparently it was most of the way there.

http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/FAIL-006.html

By: Michael Myers

Michael Myers — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:27:33 +0000

I saw a small S&S coupling on a chainstay recently, for belt drive compatibility. I thought that was pretty smart.

Didn’t those old Sweet Wings cranks use a similar setup to the Ultra-Torque?

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:38:26 +0000

Or maybe Steve Potts. One never knows, which is another reason to be nice. But back to the discussion, what might be universally useful? I’m looking at components, and wonder, does it make sense to have a Campy Ultra-Torque BB setup for MTBs? I really like the Hirth joint idea for road bikes, but (a) how would it hold up compared to other BB designs? and (b) would it be practical given the varying spindle lengths needed depending on chainstay clearances?

Also, what about the carbon fiber belt drive from Gates? Is the need for belt tension and a breakable rear triangle or elevated stays a deal killer?

By: Michael Myers

Michael Myers — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:15:09 +0000

@ Batman.

I’m not 100% certain, but I’m guessing that Steve is Steve Garro, owner/fabricator of Coconino cycles.

If I’m right, he know more about bikes than you could imagine.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:47:37 +0000

Batman, don’t be a snot. It degrades the quality of discussion, because it isn’t discussion, it’s just aggression.

By: Writememory

Writememory — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:36:37 +0000

May I humbly offer that dual chainrings be added to the list? I would really like to get away from a triple on my next XC racing 29er hardtail. Would this not improve chainline (among other things)?

As far as the headset / steerertube issue goes, I like the direction Gary Fisher went with the low stack - I think this helps standover.

By: Batman

Batman — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:34:08 +0000

Steve, please go to your LBS and talk to someone who knows bikes. You need knowledge based in fact, not magazine articles and hearsay.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:08:54 +0000

Let’s not fight over flex vs movement.

Any bonded or presses junction should not move AT ALL. If it does, it is a failed joint. Cannondale, and others, have had failures, but there are far more successful pressed/bonded junctions out there. Going to 1.5 doesn’t eliminate the joint, and there’s a discussion about diameter/length of a junction… one that I don’t want to get into.

If you try building a normal 29er frame with a straight downtube and you join that downtube at the bottom of the head tube, even with a conventional headset, it will interfere with the suspension fork crown. Trust me. I know this. An integrated headset would allow the tube to be mounted even lower, making the problem worse.

Integrated bearings are a great way to shorten the head tube length and still allow room for joining of the main tubes on some bikes. Problem is that they are difficult to manufacture with and without a curved downtube, one that can clear the fork crown and still mount low on the head tube, they provide little advantage for 29er.

By: mg

mg — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:54:30 +0000

yo Satan Spacemonkey… I know Salsa doesn’t condone this, but I’ve been running certain tires (most WTBs, Maxxis and Bontrager models) on their rims with my getto tubeless system for two full seasons now without significant issues. I can’t run every tire on the market, but I can run most of ‘em.

I also know that the reason Salsa recommends against running their rims tubeless is because they are taking the “standards” issue very seriously, and they want to make sure whatever product they eventually do release is consistent with that standard. I’m confident that when they feel there is enough of an established standard, they will jump into the fray with a compatible rim.