Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just wanted to know if anyone can tell me exactly what the rear travel on the wfo is. The Niner site says 140mm - 5.5 inches. The bike also comes with the option of 135mm or 150mm hub spacing in the rear end. It's just that I've read some reviews saying the bike has 6.5 inches of travel depending on which model you select.

Is this baloney?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
The annoying thing is that there's still only two suitable off-the-shelf fork options, the Marz 140 and WB 150.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
48,238 Posts
Naveed said:
I just wanted to know if anyone can tell me exactly what the rear travel on the wfo is. The Niner site says 140mm - 5.5 inches. The bike also comes with the option of 135mm or 150mm hub spacing in the rear end. It's just that I've read some reviews saying the bike has 6.5 inches of travel depending on which model you select.

Is this baloney?
The reviews are mistaken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
919 Posts
Davidcopperfield said:
yet the 15mm front axle is the most annoying thing. Did Marzocchi have problems with supplying a 20mm version of 44 tapered? Sure they would have sold more of them, because 15mm works as deterrant. Relacing the wheel or at least purchasing an expensive kit and only for loss of stiffness.
Maybe they didn't want to scare the hipsters away by offering a man's axle on the 44. That sort of girth can be intimidating.
 

·
I live to bike
Joined
·
2,429 Posts
Actually, both travel numbers you have heard are correct...sort of. During prototyping, Niner initially made a few models based on 6.5 inches of travel. By the time it finally got around to a productioni version, it was 5.5 inches of travel. If you purchase one, unless you get lucky to get them to sell you one of their original prototypes, you'll be purchasing a bike with 5.5 inches of rear travel.
 

·
Elitest thrill junkie
Joined
·
37,978 Posts
Jwiffle said:
Actually, both travel numbers you have heard are correct...sort of. During prototyping, Niner initially made a few models based on 6.5 inches of travel. By the time it finally got around to a productioni version, it was 5.5 inches of travel. If you purchase one, unless you get lucky to get them to sell you one of their original prototypes, you'll be purchasing a bike with 5.5 inches of rear travel.
That would be pretty irresponsible of them to sell the prototypes, maybe not all that out of the ordinary based on how Niner sells defective frames while they "come up" with solutions I guess. Probably mistaken reviewers.
 

·
I live to bike
Joined
·
2,429 Posts
Jayem said:
That would be pretty irresponsible of them to sell the prototypes, maybe not all that out of the ordinary based on how Niner sells defective frames while they "come up" with solutions I guess. Probably mistaken reviewers.
Well, I don't imagine they actually would sell the prototypes.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,799 Posts
DeeZee said:
You had a typo :thumbsup:
Man are you good, and quick too......;) CF. Oh and for the record the WFO has 7in of travel.....What? Opps my bad, I thought the 2ins.of frame flex was just added in...:rolleyes: CF.
 

·
Elitest thrill junkie
Joined
·
37,978 Posts
Jwiffle said:
Well, I don't imagine they actually would sell the prototypes.
The premise of this thread is confusion on the wheel-travel. If the prototypes did not come out (which is usually standard practice, destroy or something equivalent), then why add to the confusion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
david8613 said:
its 5.5 but feels like more because of 29inch wheels...
I've heard people say this before but I don't quite understand it...can you elaborate? Why does it feel like more b/c of the larger wheel? Thanks for any info here.
 

·
I live to bike
Joined
·
2,429 Posts
Jayem said:
The premise of this thread is confusion on the wheel-travel. If the prototypes did not come out (which is usually standard practice, destroy or something equivalent), then why add to the confusion?
The prototypes were all hyped up on these boards - pics from Niner and everything. Everyone was talking about how the new long travel Niner was going to have over 6" of travel. So now that it doesn't, people are confused about how much travel it has. That is where the confusion originated; by pointing out the origin of the confusion, I would think it would clear up the confusion rather than add it to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
BantamSLK said:
I've heard people say this before but I don't quite understand it...can you elaborate? Why does it feel like more b/c of the larger wheel? Thanks for any info here.
the bigger wheels just roll over stuff better so it feels like you have more travel when you dont...i had niner jet 9 earlier this year and it felt like it had as much travel as my cannondale carbon rush which was 4 inch travel vs 3 inch...
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,815 Posts
Jwiffle said:
The prototypes were all hyped up on these boards - pics from Niner and everything. Everyone was talking about how the new long travel Niner was going to have over 6" of travel. So now that it doesn't, people are confused about how much travel it has. That is where the confusion originated; by pointing out the origin of the confusion, I would think it would clear up the confusion rather than add it to it.
For anyone wanting to follow the story of the WFO9 development from Niner rather than e-speculating can read this, it explains it all.

http://www.ninerbikes.com/fly.aspx?layout=bikes&taxid=106&technology=true

Marzocchi came to the table with a tapered 140mm fork so that is where it is today at 5.5.

Brett
 

·
"55 lbs and climbing!"
Joined
·
1,034 Posts
Ouch!

CRAZY FRED said:
Man are you good, and quick too......;) CF. Oh and for the record the WFO has 7in of travel.....What? Opps my bad, I thought the 2ins.of frame flex was just added in...:rolleyes: CF.
CF, you sure your not getting paid by Banshee to promote the Claymore? ;)

I know I've had issues with my WFO but flex definately isn't one of them. I had wicked tire scrub on my EVO's chainstays, the WFO is way stiffer than that.

I would have liked it if they could have kept with the 6"+ travel idea though. But with the tight clearances it currently has, things would have to change somewhere to find that extra travel.:eek:

Better fork options would be great before the new season!!!!!:madman:
 

·
Always Learning
Joined
·
9,608 Posts
Jwiffle said:
The prototypes were all hyped up on these boards - pics from Niner and everything. Everyone was talking about how the new long travel Niner was going to have over 6" of travel. So now that it doesn't, people are confused about how much travel it has. That is where the confusion originated; by pointing out the origin of the confusion, I would think it would clear up the confusion rather than add it to it.
Genesis of the WFO pdf document link in this thread includes the prototype process and the final settlement on the 140mm travel front and rear:

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=448616

We started out by designing our suspension for 6" of travel and downsized from there to match up with the current 29er forks on the market. When the appropriate fork comes along, we'll be ready. Claims they have been riding a 6" CVA prototype for 4 years now as part of the development process that lead to the introduction of the WFO.

Then one can always go back to DC's fun fork thread:

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=264544

It's not like the metric system is confusing or anything. Run the numbers for any rear shock or fork to convert the travel in millimeters over to inches to clear up any confusion when it comes to how many inches you are bouncing up and down on....:D

If they originally said it would be 6" of travel, that would mean they were shooting for a rear shock and a fork with 152-3mm (5.984-6.023 inches) of travel, but in reality was the industry standard measurement of 6 inches which is 150mm. The final production model and they come out with the rear shock at 140mm (5.511 inches) and team up with Zoke for a 140mm tapered steerer fork. Remember what they said: We started out by designing our suspension for 6" of travel and downsized from there to match up with the current 29er forks on the market. When the appropriate fork comes along, we'll be ready.

And the claim in this video is that 5.5" of travel on the WFO 29"er is 'equivalent' or 'feels like' 7 inches of travel on a 26" wheeled bike.

You would have to have a rear shock and a front fork with 152 or 153mm to officially call it '6 inches of travel' in my book when converting metric measurements to inches - although the industry seems to have never had a problem rounding up 150mm (5.905 inches to call it a full six). On the other hand, 120mm is 4.724 inches - yet Niner rounds that down and calls it only 4.5 inches for the RIP 9. And they say the geometry of the RIP is based around using forks with travel between 100mm - 135mm. If you can run a 135mm fork on a RIP, why not bump up to a longer travel fork on the WFO as well?

Ah ha! Wait a minute....

Niner says that the the WFO: Niner geometry designed to work with 120-150mm travel forks

Well there you go. There's your industry 6 inches (150mm), even though it really is only 5.905 inches.:D And as they said - they're ready to take a full six inches inserted through that tapered steerer head tube as soon as the industry can produce them.

You want 6 inches up front? Throw the White Brothers 150mm fork on the front with the steerer tube crown race adapter for the non-tapered tube forks. Or keep pushing (like DC loves to post about) for longer travel 29"er forks from the manufacturers you prefer (with the tapered steerer tube of course). Or D.I.Y. conversion/mod of a long travel 26" fork to squeeze a 29"er tire in there like in DC's thread above.

Do you have links to those pictures and posts where Niner had longer travel than 6 inches (150mm) during the prototype process of the past 4 years?

BB
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top