[funkle]

OK, Take it easy on me, but recent events have been pulling me towards the dark side - the big wheeled side.

I'm really tempted to slap a cheap or borrowed 29er fork and wheel on, just to satisfy my curiosity. It looks like the AC & HA numbers could work wonderfully, not having done any real calculations yet. You could get a good 100mm in the front and keep the geometry right. A 96er Motolite may not be the ultimate end solution, but the thought of it has been keeping me up at night.

I'm just theorizing, work with me here.

 

[TiEndo]

Phone Titus.....and ask Jeff or Mathius if they've tried it in their skunks work department....Hell if they can make a Racer-X 96'er, a Motolite one should be possible

 

[funkle]

Phone Titus.....and ask Jeff or Mathius if they've tried it in their skunks work department....Hell if they can make a Racer-X 96'er, a Motolite one should be possible

Oh I'm sure they could whip up something custom. I'm talking about working with my plain 'ol '06 ML

 

[crisillo]

Oh I'm sure they could whip up something custom. I'm talking about working with my plain 'ol '06 ML

Since the ML can take up to 145mm 26" fork, you could easily fit a 29" 100mm one... would make a nice experiment.... keep us posted! :thumbsup:

 

[Warp]

Since the ML can take up to 145mm 26" fork, you could easily fit a 29" 100mm one... would make a nice experiment.... keep us posted! :thumbsup:

But then you lose 45mm of travel ... Ok, the wheel is 3" bigger... so that would compensate some.

Now If I could get 120mm of travel AND the big wheel.... :idea:

I'd love a 96'er too... I haven't ridden one, but the concept makes sense at least on paper.

 

[crisillo]

But then you lose 45mm of travel ... Ok, the wheel is 3" bigger... so that would compensate some.

Touche

Now If I could get 120mm of travel AND the big wheel.... :idea:

I'd love a 96'er too... I haven't ridden one, but the concept makes sense at least on paper.

You could get 130mm with a White bros 29er fork, but that would be like running a Totem or fox 40 on the ML

 

[craigstr]

I've been thinking the same thing

I actually e-mailed Titus about it but never got an answer, I wanted to build one custom. You might have to run a 0 rise stem to keep the bars down. Hitting the front tire with your foot in the 3 o'clock position might be a problem also. But I would love to try it out.

 

[funkle]

But then you lose 45mm of travel ... Ok, the wheel is 3" bigger... so that would compensate some.

Now If I could get 120mm of travel AND the big wheel.... :idea:

I'd love a 96'er too... I haven't ridden one, but the concept makes sense at least on paper.

You don't need as much travel with a 29er. Which is why you see guys riding really rugged terrain on totally rigid 29ers.

I'm really tempted to try it out.

In the end, I'm thinking a better solution might be having 2 bikes with little overlap: an El Guapo and a hardtail 29er.

 

[Whafe]

funkle, I like your thoughts. When I was talking to Mathias etc about my ExoGrid ML, I asked the same question. The answer was not they couldnt do it. Thats not to say it cant be done. But apparently it screws up the Geo... Remember they talk alot too...... It will happen some day am sure. Hell a 29 inch wheeled MotoLite would be a rocka billy of a bike....mmmmmm

 

[demo_slug]

I was starting to think that 29er wheels could replace travel. but, I've changed my mind. after reading the "MTBR Spot light on 29er shoot out", most of the reviews seemed to dog the titus for having 3 inches of travel. sure they pointed to the RP3 and harsh suspension. but personaly I think the observation is true and the conclusion is flawed. three inches of rear travel is weak. so sure the larger wheel will smooth out and roll over low amplitude bumps. but the big wheel can't compensate for every thing.

for example drops to flat. a 4 foot drop to flat will feel the same on a 26 inch hard tail as it will on a 29er hard tail. so it will depend on the trail conditions.

but 5 inch 29er vs 5 inch 26er.... no doubt the 29er is going to ride smoother. and i'm sure there are trails that a 29er hardtail is a lethal weapon and could blow any 4 inch bike off the trail. but YMMV.

 

[Whafe]

The evolution of the 29er is really in its infancy. I know I will get flamed for that. But really it has only been perfected if we can say perfected more or less on HT bikes... Design will for sure start to move rapidly in AM 29er's in my humble opinion................. Time will tell. Have to agree with demo_slug.. I am flying to the US of A today, so can have a fix of magazines.....

 

[kenai]

for what it is worth.....had an aluminum RX 29er w/ an RP3....rear end was a little harsh.....got a new RX Exo 29er w/ RP23 and rear end rides totally different (front end too but that is another discussion) nice and smooth when run full open.....rear end stiffens appropriately based on which ProPedal setting you choose.
I always run the rear shock wide open as suspension design is really efficient already and just use the 3rd ProPedal setting as quick flip/lockout on the road or really smooth sections.

 

[funkle]

I was starting to think that 29er wheels could replace travel. but, I've changed my mind. after reading the "MTBR Spot light on 29er shoot out", most of the reviews seemed to dog the titus for having 3 inches of travel. sure they pointed to the RP3 and harsh suspension. but personaly I think the observation is true and the conclusion is flawed. three inches of rear travel is weak. so sure the larger wheel will smooth out and roll over low amplitude bumps. but the big wheel can't compensate for every thing.

for example drops to flat. a 4 foot drop to flat will feel the same on a 26 inch hard tail as it will on a 29er hard tail. so it will depend on the trail conditions.

but 5 inch 29er vs 5 inch 26er.... no doubt the 29er is going to ride smoother. and i'm sure there are trails that a 29er hardtail is a lethal weapon and could blow any 4 inch bike off the trail. but YMMV.

Demo, you live in the Bay Area, you should've come to the 29er demo ride last Saturday.

I rode that RX29er, and I think the comments were in relation to the other FS 29ers, like the super smooth (EDIT)Ellsworth(/EDIT) with 5" in back. it did have a relatively harsh ride, or the rear end just didn't feel that active. I wanted to like that RX the best, but the ride and handling were just not there - not on par with a 26er RX.

On drops you'll suffer more, but you'll benefit from way more stability on the landing.

I don't know if 29" wheels can replace travel. I think it sort of like taking a different direction, and not being so obsessed with travel. After some time on a 29er you start to get into the groove, you don't miss it so much. I think the only thing in it's infancy about the 29er movement is peoples acceptance of it.

 

[Dropin%Dug]

I was starting to think that 29er wheels could replace travel. but, I've changed my mind. after reading the "MTBR Spot light on 29er shoot out", most of the reviews seemed to dog the titus for having 3 inches of travel. sure they pointed to the RP3 and harsh suspension. but personaly I think the observation is true and the conclusion is flawed. three inches of rear travel is weak.

Careful here...the "usable" travel is what is important. An 80mm fork and 29er front wheel on the ML would probably be OK for 50% of your riding. This is because you're only using 3" or so for absorbing the small bumps on the trail. So basically the 29er would be smoother due to the shallower angle of attack.

However, when the rolling gets deep and steep, you'll notice the 3" of travel you're giving up. And that begs the question of "Why"????

The other key is the distance from the ground to the bottom of the Head Tube. Unfortunately, you are gaining 75mm with the 29er wheel. So to get the same geometry as a 26" wheel and 150mm fork you're gonna need a fork in the 80mm realm and this isn't even taking into consideration the "real" stack up heights.

However, assuming they are relatively close, the other considerations are the clearence of the wheel to the down tube and it's relationship to the cranks. There's a bunch of stuff to consider when you go 29er. So we get back to that question of Why??? Why give up 3" of travel? To gain what??

I've ridden a 29er for most of last summer and I went back to 26" wheels. I don't want to start the 29er vs 26er religious squabble here, but for me the increased drag of the big wheels while climbing and the slow, sluggish steering made me want to go back. It was fun, I did it, didn't need the T-Shirt.

A 96er is intrigueing and I'd like to ride one, but it only really makes sense to me for a 3-4inch travel fork. For heavier duty riding, I'd rather have 6" of travel and a 26" wheel to maintain steering input. They may be able to mate 6" of travel to a 29er front wheel some day, but I'll probably be dead when they do it.

Finally, the fact that MBR ragged on the RX doesn't suprise me. I'd also question your observation and conclusions. Those on this board who have never ridden an RX really don't have any idea of how stiff an RX is. IT'S SUPPOSE TO BE STIFF!!!! :madman:

It's a racing platform for cryin' out loud and one of the finest made (next to the SWorks Epic). These bikes feel like HT's 90% of the time. The only time they don't is when you hit a sharp impact bump and they absorb it and keep you from losing your line. It's what they are suppose to do.

So to say the RX felt "stiff" compared to the other bikes in the test is actually a compliment and it doesn't surprise me that Richie's "Wrecking Crew" doesn't have a clue in that regard.

And you may say well why don't they have 4" of travel instead of 3" for their 29" wheeled bike. Titus built the thing as a "Racer" not a Sunday Trail bike. The extra inch of travel and a 29er rear wheel would mean less efficient climbing. The 29" wheel provides sufficient bump absorbtion and Titus wanted to keep it stiff. Bottom line.

So, you want plush...stick with an ML, don't put a 29" wheel on it, be happy with what it is. You want to kick ass up climbs and have some give over manageable bumps? In general, have a really nice trail bike, get a 100mm RX. Want to race at a WC Level, get an 80mm RX and climb with the best.

A 29er RX??? Well, from my perspective....Why???

 

[demo_slug]

cornfused?

So to say the RX felt "stiff" compared to the other bikes in the test is actually a compliment and it doesn't surprise me that Richie's "Wrecking Crew" doesn't have a clue in that regard.

:

In What way does Richie have any thing to do with what I said? are you talking about Mountian Bike Action?

 

[funkle]

Careful here...the "usable" travel is what is important. An 80mm fork and 29er front wheel on the ML would probably be OK for 50% of your riding. This is because you're only using 3" or so for absorbing the small bumps on the trail. So basically the 29er would be smoother due to the shallower angle of attack.

However, when the rolling gets deep and steep, you'll notice the 3" of travel you're giving up. And that begs the question of "Why"????

The other key is the distance from the ground to the bottom of the Head Tube. Unfortunately, you are gaining 75mm with the 29er wheel. So to get the same geometry as a 26" wheel and 150mm fork you're gonna need a fork in the 80mm realm and this isn't even taking into consideration the "real" stack up heights.

However, assuming they are relatively close, the other considerations are the clearence of the wheel to the down tube and it's relationship to the cranks. There's a bunch of stuff to consider when you go 29er. So we get back to that question of Why??? Why give up 3" of travel? To gain what??

I've ridden a 29er for most of last summer and I went back to 26" wheels. I don't want to start the 29er vs 26er religious squabble here, but for me the increased drag of the big wheels while climbing and the slow, sluggish steering made me want to go back. It was fun, I did it, didn't need the T-Shirt.

A 96er is intrigueing and I'd like to ride one, but it only really makes sense to me for a 3-4inch travel fork. For heavier duty riding, I'd rather have 6" of travel and a 26" wheel to maintain steering input. They may be able to mate 6" of travel to a 29er front wheel some day, but I'll probably be dead when they do it.

Finally, the fact that MBR ragged on the RX doesn't suprise me. I'd also question your observation and conclusions. Those on this board who have never ridden an RX really don't have any idea of how stiff an RX is. IT'S SUPPOSE TO BE STIFF!!!! :madman:

It's a racing platform for cryin' out loud and one of the finest made (next to the SWorks Epic). These bikes feel like HT's 90% of the time. The only time they don't is when you hit a sharp impact bump and they absorb it and keep you from losing your line. It's what they are suppose to do.

So to say the RX felt "stiff" compared to the other bikes in the test is actually a compliment and it doesn't surprise me that Richie's "Wrecking Crew" doesn't have a clue in that regard.

And you may say well why don't they have 4" of travel instead of 3" for their 29" wheeled bike. Titus built the thing as a "Racer" not a Sunday Trail bike. The extra inch of travel and a 29er rear wheel would mean less efficient climbing. The 29" wheel provides sufficient bump absorbtion and Titus wanted to keep it stiff. Bottom line.

So, you want plush...stick with an ML, don't put a 29" wheel on it, be happy with what it is. You want to kick ass up climbs and have some give over manageable bumps? In general, have a really nice trail bike, get a 100mm RX. Want to race at a WC Level, get an 80mm RX and climb with the best.

A 29er RX??? Well, from my perspective....Why???

As far as your observations and conclusions about my observations and conclusions on the RX I get the stiffness thing. My background is riding stiff, fast XC bikes. Coming from an even stiffer Klein Attitude, the RX 26er felt fabulous, and I hooked op with it wonderfully. It was nimble and flickable, and I could easily put it where I wanted. And it responds to explosive pedaling power. And I'm fully aware that there is a trade off in plushness for this kind of handling. The thing about the RX 29er is that it didn't give me the kind of responsiveness that the 26er did, so the harshness was a little hard to justify when other 29ers in the test were not only plusher, but handled better as well.

As for the "why", the 29er thing works for some, and not for others. I've seen some guys who have never ridden anything but long travel bikes get on a 29er and be instant converts. For other people, like yourself, it doesn't mesh. For me, coming from years of riding stiff hardtail mountain bikes, the 29er thing is very compelling, as a way to have my cake and eat it.

You bring up some good points on some of the other complications.:thumbsup:

 

[zorg]

A couple problems with the 29er thing:
- apparently you need a head angle that's a couple degrees steeper to make up for the increased diameter
- nobody, except for WB, makes a 5" 29er fork, and according to Dave Turner none of the big boys are interested in making one.

I'm not interested in a 29er bike, but a 96er makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Titus Jeff]

Good Points

Hey Guys,

Great thread! You all bring up some very valid points regarding 26" vs. 29". Ed Arnett loves his Racer X 69'er, but a Moto Lite 69'er just won't work. While the Moto Lite is an awesome design and fits the needs of many riders, we are limited when it comes to changing the design of the ML (even for custom bikes). The two limiting factors of making a Moto Lite 69'er or even a full bore 5" ML 29'er are the head and seat angles. Unfortunately we can't change either of those parameters because of how the effect the top tube. Now you're probably wondering what the TT has to do with anything, but remember, on the ML, there is a pivot on the TT and any changes to that pivot location changes the suspension design and then you really wouldn't have a Moto Lite anymore.

So while it appears there's a lot of interest in longer travel 29'ers and 69'er's, we'd have to create an entirely new suspension platform to accommodate such things. Thanks for all the great ideas and if you guys really think it's worth it for Titus to design a long travel 29'er or 69'er we'll give it consideration and investigate the possibilities.

Ride On!

JT

 

[zorg]

Well, if you guys ever decide to do another 29/69er bike, please do a reall all mountain bike. Everybody else is doing 4" 29ers and that does not appeal to me all that much. If you can come up with a new 96er with 5-5.5" of travel on both ends, that could be killer.

 

[Warp]

So while it appears there's a lot of interest in longer travel 29'ers and 69'er's, we'd have to create an entirely new suspension platform to accommodate such things. Thanks for all the great ideas and if you guys really think it's worth it for Titus to design a long travel 29'er or 69'er we'll give it consideration and investigate the possibilities.

Ride On!

JT

Time for a prototype to be built?

You can leave all that FEM analysis and CAD/CAM investigation for after you have ridden a very basic long travel 69 proto. Because the computer can tell you the stress points, where to save weight, etc. But the behaviour of the whole package is something you don't really know until you've ridden the thing. Especially for this new approach.

Just a wild stab in the dark...

Nice to see you're exploring possibilities and there's R&D going on! :thumbsup: