Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
41 - 59 of 59 Posts

·
Fo' Bidniz in da haus
Joined
·
17,287 Posts
Well Said!

Try this 29er riders.....ride the bike and if you like it, you like it. Dont overanalyze the geometry in parallel and convince yourself you may not like it due to some theoretical mumbo jumbo....or perhaps get another hobby to relieve some of that energy from frustration that you put into your pseudo-engineering efforts
 

·
drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
Joined
·
3,910 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
motoman711 said:
Yeah, I could see that. Like the rear of the bike is just compressing your spine on each bump?
Since I sit more upright on the Inbred,this is the reason I suspected my back hurt a little more. I'll swap with a longer stem and see if it feels better.
 

·
drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
Joined
·
3,910 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
FoShizzle said:
Well Said!

Try this 29er riders.....ride the bike and if you like it, you like it. Dont overanalyze the geometry in parallel and convince yourself you may not like it due to some theoretical mumbo jumbo....or perhaps get another hobby to relieve some of that energy from frustration that you put into your pseudo-engineering efforts
An even better quote from Sparrow:
Don't worry about rake, trail, head angle, etc.... just get a Hopey Steering Damper! Makes all bikes handle better in all conditions!

:D

BTW, my point in starting this thread was that I could not discern the differences (or adapted quickly) to seemingly small changes in numbers and wondered if others could.
 

·
Fo' Bidniz in da haus
Joined
·
17,287 Posts
Drevil said:
An even better quote from Sparrow:
Don't worry about rake, trail, head angle, etc.... just get a Hopey Steering Damper! Makes all bikes handle better in all conditions!

:D

BTW, my point in starting this thread was that I could not discern the differences (or adapted quickly) to seemingly small changes in numbers and wondered if others could.
oh i hear yuh....i got why you posted the thread and it is a good topic...and I am with you. It is the "average" 29er freak I refer to....those that have so much pent up frustration that instead of just masturbating it away they obsess about every nuance about their bike whether they understand it or not....or the ones that cut and paste 29er rhetoric from a bike mag or the FAQs to profess their love for all things 29ers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,486 Posts
FoShizzle said:
oh i hear yuh....i got why you posted the thread and it is a good topic...and I am with you. It is the "average" 29er freak I refer to....those that have so much pent up frustration that instead of just masturbating it away they obsess about every nuance about their bike whether they understand it or not....or the ones that cut and paste 29er rhetoric from a bike mag or the FAQs to profess their love for all things 29ers.
Yep, there's an awful lot of mental jerquing off on this board. What's a guy gotta do to get some more ride pics?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
FoShizzle said:
oh i hear yuh....i got why you posted the thread and it is a good topic...and I am with you. It is the "average" 29er freak I refer to....those that have so much pent up frustration that instead of just masturbating it away they obsess about every nuance about their bike whether they understand it or not....or the ones that cut and paste 29er rhetoric from a bike mag or the FAQs to profess their love for all things 29ers.
Very intersting discussion (RE: angles, performance, etc, NOT the masturbating away frustrations :skep: ).

I fell in love with the ride of the 29er when I got on the Karate Monkey. If I were to have a custom bike made, I'd probably ask them to mimic it. It wasn't until I notice the OCD didn't feel as perfect that I started wondering about angles / dimensions, etc. I'm still trying to figure out the causes of the differences....

B:D
 

·
drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
Joined
·
3,910 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 · (Edited)
Drevil said:
The white bike has a head tube angle of 69.5, seat tube angle of 71.5, a measured A-C of 520mm, and I vaguely recall a rake of 43mm. Chainstay measured at 448mm for the 32x20 ratio. Center of saddle to center of handlebar is 690mm. ~25.5 lbs.
Wife's out of town...insomnia...idle hands...so what else to do but put a rigid fork on the Inbred? Problem is, this fork was made for my Matt Chester. The low-slung Matt Chester. The "never-gonna-put-suspension-on-it" racerboy Matt Chester.

The Waltworks fork has an Axle-to-Crown of 430mm and a rake of 50mm. How'd the numbers change? I did a bad job of measuring, but I think the handlebars dropped at least two inches. According to my handy-dandy angle finder, the head angle is now 74 and the trail is 52.6 mm (if I used DWF's trail finder correctly):

Bead Seat Diameter622
Wheelset Radius365
Rake50.0
HTA74.0
Resulting Trail = 52.6
The only other thing I changed was the angle of my saddle. Putting so low a fork on it had the front of the saddle pointing down further than I liked. I leveled it back up and considered it good to go.



So how's it ride? I had no idea what to expect when I went to one of my regular parks (Avalon in MD) today with Allroy and a few friends and spun around at a pretty good clip for three hours. The park is mostly singletrack, peppered with roots and rocks. The climbs are about medium length for our area, and they often have roots or logs you have to hop over as you are going up or down (uhhh, I choose those lines instead of the easier ones ;) )

In my limited understanding of the concept of trail, I expected the relatively small number to throw me around and I'd crash a bit before I got used to it. I didn't. I expected it to be "nervous" (which to me means extremely quick steering). It wasn't. In fact, I really, really, really preferred the handling with this short rigid fork versus the Reba. Climbing was a lot easier. While climbing with the locked-out Reba, I had to wrestle the bars to keep the bike going straight. I didn't have to do that with the Walt fork.

So what suffered or didn't feel as good? When getting over smaller logs, I try to loft my front wheel then "pop" the back wheel up so neither touches the log. It was harder with this fork. I assume because my bars are lower and I have to pull up more.

Also, this fork swap dropped my bottom bracket to a measly 11.25" high (measured ground to center). I expected a lot of crank clunks. Luckily, this park doesn't have too many rock gardens and the ones we went through, I ratcheted. I bashed a few logs with my bashring, but it's nice and sturdy and I try to finesse more nowadays. I only hit my pedals on big, exposed roots while honking up some steep hills. That kinda sucked.

In conclusion, my wife's going to kill me. My justification for getting a new bike was that I needed a suspension fork and I couldn't just slap it on the Chester (or else destroy any semblance of good handling)...but the Inbred feels/rides so much better with the Walt. Doh! :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
804 Posts
Drevil said:
Wife's out of town...insomnia...idle hands...so what else to do but put a rigid fork on the Inbred?...My justification for getting a new bike was that I needed a suspension fork and I couldn't just slap it on the Chester (or else destroy any semblance of good handling)...but the Inbred feels/rides so much better with the Walt. Doh! :eek:
Idle hands, indeed. So which bike are you going to ride? The rigid ti 29er SS or the rigid steel 29er SS? By the way, I know all about this kind of behavior. The guy I sold the Wily to e-mailed me about getting rid of it because he's strapped for cash; it took all my strength not to make him an offer and get my (former) baby back.:madman:
 

·
3327333
Joined
·
2,856 Posts
Nat said:
Yep, there's an awful lot of mental jerquing off on this board. What's a guy gotta do to get some more ride pics?
Haha! What, post up some ride pics on the 29'er board so I get the life sucked out of me trying to explain why I like my bike the way it is and not the way some people think it should be?

Yeah, I do that occasionally, after I've been drinking....too much....! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,598 Posts
Drevil said:
Wife's out of town...insomnia...idle hands...so what else to do but put a rigid fork on the Inbred? Problem is, this fork was made for my Matt Chester. The low-slung Matt Chester. The "never-gonna-put-suspension-on-it" racerboy Matt Chester.

The Waltworks fork has an Axle-to-Crown of 430mm and a rake of 50mm. How'd the numbers change? I did a bad job of measuring, but I think the handlebars dropped at least two inches. According to my handy-dandy angle finder, the head angle is now 74 and the trail is 52.6 mm (if I used DWF's trail finder correctly):

Bead Seat Diameter622
Wheelset Radius365
Rake50.0
HTA74.0
Resulting Trail = 52.6
The only other thing I changed was the angle of my saddle. Putting so low a fork on it had the front of the saddle pointing down further than I liked. I leveled it back up and considered it good to go.



So how's it ride? I had no idea what to expect when I went to one of my regular parks (Avalon in MD) today with Allroy and a few friends and spun around at a pretty good clip for three hours. The park is mostly singletrack, peppered with roots and rocks. The climbs are about medium length for our area, and they often have roots or logs you have to hop over as you are going up or down (uhhh, I choose those lines instead of the easier ones ;) )

In my limited understanding of the concept of trail, I expected the relatively small number to throw me around and I'd crash a bit before I got used to it. I didn't. I expected it to be "nervous" (which to me means extremely quick steering). It wasn't. In fact, I really, really, really preferred the handling with this short rigid fork versus the Reba. Climbing was a lot easier. While climbing with the locked-out Reba, I had to wrestle the bars to keep the bike going straight. I didn't have to do that with the Walt fork.

So what suffered or didn't feel as good? When getting over smaller logs, I try to loft my front wheel then "pop" the back wheel up so neither touches the log. It was harder with this fork. I assume because my bars are lower and I have to pull up more.

Also, this fork swap dropped my bottom bracket to a measly 11.25" high (measured ground to center). I expected a lot of crank clunks. Luckily, this park doesn't have too many rock gardens and the ones we went through, I ratcheted. I bashed a few logs with my bashring, but it's nice and sturdy and I try to finesse more nowadays. I only hit my pedals on big, exposed roots while honking up some steep hills. That kinda sucked.

In conclusion, my wife's going to kill me. My justification for getting a new bike was that I needed a suspension fork and I couldn't just slap it on the Chester (or else destroy any semblance of good handling)...but the Inbred feels/rides so much better with the Walt. Doh! :eek:
The bike looks right with the Waltworks up front too IMO.

So when's the REba going up for sale? ;):D

Or how's about you send me that Walworks and I can send you a Zion 26er rigid fork for your Inbred? Slightly taller than the WW and that'll help you get the front end up easier. yet it is still considerably shorter than the REba. ;):D That WW would rock on my Zion.
 

·
3327333
Joined
·
2,856 Posts
shiggy said:
I tend to prefer higher BBs as I also run longer cranks. My Matt Chester 26" was built with no BB drop (~13" high depending on tires). I like not hitting pedals as often and having more clearance under the rings.

As far as handling, I see little difference between ~12" and ~13". Other geometry factors make more difference for stability and cornering.
14"!! Wow, that is one high BB for a rigid 29'er. I though my 12-3/4" was on the high end of things. I'm like you Shiggy, I prefer no pedal strikes and being able to pedal through turns if I can.

So Shiggy, doesn't the BB drop make more of a difference than the BB height? And if so why don't more people post that measurement?

Very cool thread. I always wondered whether folks noticed these minute geo differences or adjusted accordingly.

Ed E
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,486 Posts
edemtbs said:
Haha! What, post up some ride pics on the 29'er board so I get the life sucked out of me trying to explain why I like my bike the way it is and not the way some people think it should be?

Yeah, I do that occasionally, after I've been drinking....too much....! :D
I, for one, really enjoy your pics. Bar ends or not. The trick is to figure out which posters are mentally calculating angles, and which posters are mentally eyeing up lines.

Please keep posting pics!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
edemtbs said:
14"!! Wow, that is one high BB for a rigid 29'er. I though my 12-3/4" was on the high end of things. I'm like you Shiggy, I prefer no pedal strikes and being able to pedal through turns if I can.

So Shiggy, doesn't the BB drop make more of a difference than the BB height? And if so why don't more people post that measurement?

Very cool thread. I always wondered whether folks noticed these minute geo differences or adjusted accordingly.

Ed E
BB drop is good for comparing frames built for the same wheel size. The BB height varies with the tire size. It is the BB height that matters for pedal clearance and possible handling changes.

My 26" wheel Chester has ZERO BB drop. The "same" frame design for 29" wheels would have a 1.5" drop.
 

·
3327333
Joined
·
2,856 Posts
shiggy said:
BB drop is good for comparing frames built for the same wheel size. The BB height varies with the tire size. It is the BB height that matters for pedal clearance and possible handling changes.

My 26" wheel Chester has ZERO BB drop. The "same" frame design for 29" wheels would have a 1.5" drop.
Thanks. I thought the BB position relative to the axles was more important than height when it came to bike handling characteristics. I knew BB height and crank length mattered for pedal strikes of course.

Ed E
 

·
3327333
Joined
·
2,856 Posts
Nat said:
I, for one, really enjoy your pics. Bar ends or not. The trick is to figure out which posters are mentally calculating angles, and which posters are mentally eyeing up lines.

Please keep posting pics!
:) I'll be back, no worries.

And incidentally since you brought it up. Ironically not long after the "bar end discussion" I had an opportunity to ride a friend's ss Niner that had a brand spankin' new JJ H-bar on it. I really was impressed in the short time I had to test it out; I instantly felt comfortable, the brake levers were positioned spot on and in some minor technical sections I did not feel like I was going to lose my grip. So I may do some more fiddling with my Mary setup or just bite the bullet realizing the JJ has a superior geometry and buy the H-bar. One thing concerns me is the "straight" section available on the H-bar, it seemed a bit cramped but I think JJ has two versions of the H-bar; one wide and one not so wide.

Ed E
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,486 Posts
edemtbs said:
:) I'll be back, no worries.

And incidentally since you brought it up. Ironically not long after the "bar end discussion" I had an opportunity to ride a friend's ss Niner that had a brand spankin' new JJ H-bar on it. I really was impressed in the short time I had to test it out; I instantly felt comfortable, the brake levers were positioned spot on and in some minor technical sections I did not feel like I was going to lose my grip. So I may do some more fiddling with my Mary setup or just bite the bullet realizing the JJ has a superior geometry and buy the H-bar. One thing concerns me is the "straight" section available on the H-bar, it seemed a bit cramped but I think JJ has two versions of the H-bar; one wide and one not so wide.

Ed E
I had a Mary and it never quite measured up to the venerable H Bar. It was pretty good, but it was hard to get the angle just right. Plus, titanium makes a very nice handlebar. My H-bars are a couple years old, so I don't know if they're the narrow or wide version, or something in between.
 

·
Harmonius Wrench
Joined
·
8,254 Posts
Drevil: In reference to your Inbred/ Waltworks fork combo- You do not mention that along with you head tube steepening up, your seat tube angle is also steeper now. This may account for why you feel it climbs better. The old conventional wisdom was that a steeper seat tube angle put you in a better climbing position and allowed for the transfer from seated to standing climbing to be made easier.

In addition, now that your handle bars are lower, and the seatube angle steeper, you have biased a little more weight to the front tire, which may account for your like of the steering performance. (better bite for the front tire). Obviously, you discovered the negative of having a harder to loft front end.

Reading your account made me think of all the classic XC steeds of the 90's. Very similar handling traits to what you are describing here.

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
 

·
drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
Joined
·
3,910 Posts
Discussion Starter · #58 ·
Guitar Ted said:
Drevil: In reference to your Inbred/ Waltworks fork combo- You do not mention that along with you head tube steepening up, your seat tube angle is also steeper now. This may account for why you feel it climbs better. The old conventional wisdom was that a steeper seat tube angle put you in a better climbing position and allowed for the transfer from seated to standing climbing to be made easier.

In addition, now that your handle bars are lower, and the seatube angle steeper, you have biased a little more weight to the front tire, which may account for your like of the steering performance. (better bite for the front tire). Obviously, you discovered the negative of having a harder to loft front end.

Reading your account made me think of all the classic XC steeds of the 90's. Very similar handling traits to what you are describing here.

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the second paragraph. I put a Nevegal up front when I had the Reba on the Inbred, and I hated it. Any time I was going slightly uphill and turning (like around a curve) it would wash out. I figured I just had to get used to it since I hadn't put too many rides into them.

After riding with the rigid fork today, they were biting and holding. I like 'em now and will probably put the other on the front of my Chester.
 

·
drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
Joined
·
3,910 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 ·
Nat said:
I had a Mary and it never quite measured up to the venerable H Bar. It was pretty good, but it was hard to get the angle just right. Plus, titanium makes a very nice handlebar. My H-bars are a couple years old, so I don't know if they're the narrow or wide version, or something in between.
I'm not absolutely certain, but I believe the current wide one is the same as the old ones.
 
41 - 59 of 59 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top