I never understood why Fisher didn't convert the Ferrous to G2. That's probably a discussion for a different thread, but I believe the Ferrus would have sold better had it been made with G2 geometry.

Also agree. If it were G2, I would have had confidence to buy it without riding it, using my other G2 bikes for reference. Being some other geometry, I wouldn't put a couple thousand down without a demo.

Since they did not sell well, my LBS was reluctant to stock Ferrous for demo.

So, no Ferrous..:sad:

 

yeah, umm, I was meaning if Fisher redesigned the Ferrous with G2 geometry. Not, just slapping a g2 fork on it.
That's why I have a Rig myself.

 

Agreed, I would have bought one for an SS if they converted it to G2.

when my rig frame cracked i replaced it with a ferrous frame. So i built up the ferrous with the G2 fork..and i cant say i was too happy with the results. it didnt like alot of steer angle...switchbacks always made me nervous...if i steered too much it would like to snap the fork around all the way and slam the bike down to the outside.

im going back with a rig frame now (loved how the geo felt) and im getting an appropriate fork for the ferrous

 

(G2 took advantage with slightly shorter TT's I think).

Looking at the archives the 09 Paragon has an effective tt of 601.9 (G2) vs an 07 Paragon which had an effective TT of 609.9 (G1).

I was really hoping to compare Superfly's but alas they have always been G2.

I have to try a G2 bike, I always found G1 had me "hanging out there" and I did not like it.

If the G2 feels better for me (and I sell my 26'er) then a Superfly SS will be ordered !!!

 

I never understood why Fisher didn't convert the Ferrous to G2. That's probably a discussion for a different thread, but I believe the Ferrus would have sold better had it been made with G2 geometry.

Agreed, I would have bought one for an SS if they converted it to G2.

 

I never understood why Fisher didn't convert the Ferrous to G2. That's probably a discussion for a different thread, but I believe the Ferrus would have sold better had it been made with G2 geometry.

 

Ferrous

FWIW, the GF Ferrous (may it RIP) was never G2 per se with its 72.6 degree HTA. That useful info and a few bucks should get you a decent dark beer somewhere...

 

Was toe overlap ever a problem on G1 bikes then? Super long top tubes, modest 71.5º HTA. OK, bit slacker on the S's and maybe M's.
Don't forget that Fisher started out with Marzocchi fork: 43mm. As flexy as those were, they really ripped up the singletracks nicely.
A profound local anti-29" semi pro rider was reported to mention behind my back that I was irritatingly fast on my slapped together G1 Fisher. In my face he critisized the flexy BB and headtube. But, I dropped him on winding singletrack, and passed him on the up-ledge where he had gotten stuck.

But yes, toe clearance was considered long in advance. I talked to gary about making XS 29"er, just to P-O the haters. Slack and long offset front ends were theoretisized, but not immediately put into testing, for obvious reasons. Now that a Fisher pro lady of <5'2" is riding an S (G2 took advantage with slightly shorter TT's I think), perhaps XS has become obsolete. I proclaimed beforehand G2 that similar numbers would allow for a 4'11" rider to fit 29" comfortably. At 4" per frame size by default (long story but it works for me), I may have been erring on the safe side.
No-one has made a proper production XS that I know of, and of course it's by no means a necessity. It'd be cool though, for school kids racing with mom's wheelset in their otherwise lower end 29" bikes.

 

Yeah, sorry you are right for some reason I thought it was 06 but it was 07.

I was not implying he said they pulled the numbers out of the air Just responding to a question earlier.

 

Plus Trek started the G2 with a 26" Hifi bike a few years before they did anything with the 29er".

Actually Fisher introduced the HiFi in 07 with G2 geometry. The next year the entire 29er line was G2.

I agree G2 is a personal preference thing. It handles great for me in tight, twisty stuff. I love it, some people hate it. You never know until you ride one, then and only then you can decide if it's for you or not.

Also I don't think GT was trying to say that the other companies just pulled numbers out of the air. Just most of them were using the exact same HTA & STA as each other. A lot of them seem to have taken the approach of this is what it has to be, instead of how can we change this to really improve.

 

All the other bike companies did not just pick geo. numbers out of the air. They designed their bikes with what was available at the time. Even if a bike company wanted different offsets very few had the money to convince a suspension company it was a good idea.

It took someone like Trek to front the budget to do so and it just so happened it worked out well. Now the suspension companies increased offset below what Trek was using to not infringe on patents, quicken up steering/decrease toe overlap, and still have a reasonable offset that would work well with frames that have already been made before the change.

Plus Trek started the G2 with a 26" Hifi bike a few years before they did anything with the 29er" and if I am not mistaken Cannondale has had an increased offset on the Lefty for much longer. Neither being as long as the 51mm but that was for 29ers and the others 26.

There is not a good or bad overall, it is up to the rider to decide what they like. I am happy with G2 and I personally don't have any issues with the handling even in tight southeastern trails. To each their own.

 

Plot to the next bond movie, did you not watch the last 2 films, no plot / style required!!

Bond is dead!!

And a 100mm G2 fox will work great on a 80mm 29er frame, will it be to your riding tastes ?? who know's, I'd likely run 120mm on a 80mm bike cause that suites my tastes.

 

It will work... until you push the lock out, at which point your bike will implode, causing a chain reaction destroying 29ers and their riders around the world. It's what Fisher and Absalon have been scheming and waiting for all along. Or it's the plot to the next Bond movie... I think I'm on to something.

 

The big question I have is will a 100mm Fox G2 fork work on my Redline Monocog Flight which is recomended for 80mm?

 

When I first mentioned toe overlap as a driving factor in the development of G2 geometry, no one would believe it. Now that YOU'VE discussed it, it's gospel. Thanks.

Whatever. I never said I was the final authority on any of this. Just giving out what I know to help where I can.

Happy trails.

 

Glad you were amazed.

No offense to you, but I was taking the statement I quoted from you and commenting further. I didn't say that you hadn't mentioned it, nor that you were wrong about that.

No big deal, okay. I'm just trying to shed some light to others about what G2 is and where it came from. And it was more than just about toe overlap. As I wrote.

When I first mentioned toe overlap as a driving factor in the development of G2 geometry, no one would believe it. Now that YOU'VE discussed it, it's gospel. Thanks.

 

Amazing... you delete the portion of my message discussing the development of G2 geometry to deal w/ toe overlap in smaller sizes, then go into a lengthy diatribe telling us that G2 geometry never was about quick, stable steering but rather all about toe overlap, as if no one had ever mentioned it.

Glad you were amazed.

No offense to you, but I was taking the statement I quoted from you and commenting further. I didn't say that you hadn't mentioned it, nor that you were wrong about that.

No big deal, okay. I'm just trying to shed some light to others about what G2 is and where it came from. And it was more than just about toe overlap. As I wrote.

 

Mmmmm......well. Kinda. That's really not quite it. What Fisher wanted was to eliminate toe overlap and have decent steering. The big misconception that folks have about G2 is that it is "twitchy", "quick", "fast steering". etc. It isn't.

To eliminate toe overlap in smaller sizes, Fisher had to convince Trek to back him up on buying the tooling for Fox to do a longer offset. Not only did Trek let him do that, they got Rock Shox on board as well. Trek/Fisher paid for all of the machine tooling to do this.

So now Fisher had a longer offset, and to compensate for the increased instability, the correct head angle had to be used to bring things back to a more nuetral steering feel that Fisher hoped 26"er freaks moving over to 29"ers would get on with out of the gate. This is what G2 steering is all about on 29"ers. Of course, they re-worked 26 inch geometry while they were at it to correct some cornering problems Fisher R&D weren't happy with all along with "G1", and they could do that now that new tooling was being done for 29"ers anyway.

The rest of the 29"er industry now had a chance to revisit geometry as well. No longer were suspension fork offsets locked in to the old 38mm that the original Reba had. Of course, Fox was in the 29"er game now, and they hit it right outta the gate with the 46mm offset, which was an influence of the Fisher deal. Now all 29"er companies could help to get a quicker feeling steering than the older offsets/head angles would allow. Sure, you could go 73 degrees with 38mm offset and get a similar trail figure, but in practice these bikes rode not so great, since the front wheel was "tucked under" the rider more instead of kicked out front, which not only makes forks work better, but eliminates the aforementioned toe overlap issues, which 73 degree angles made worse.

I did a ton of experimentation on my own with offsets, head angle, and different axle to crown measurements, and basically what the results were indicating to me were that the 29"er wheel, due to its greater gyroscopic forces, and therefore inherent stability, allows for a wider range of "what works" for head angles, fork offsets, and resulting trail measurements. For instance, I just rode home on my OS Bikes Blackbuck, parallel 74 degree head/seat tube angles, 51mm offset, trail figure of approx 55mm.

Twitchy? Unrideable? Nope. Quick yes. But 29"er wheels let me get away with this.

YMMV

Amazing... you delete the portion of my message discussing the development of G2 geometry to deal w/ toe overlap in smaller sizes, then go into a lengthy diatribe telling us that G2 geometry never was about quick, stable steering but rather all about toe overlap, as if no one had ever mentioned it.

 

G2 geometry never was superior, just a different approach to the same problem, that being how to get a 29er to turn quickly without being unstable at speed. In essence, he (Fisher) arrived at a similar trail figure as everyone else, but did it by kicking out the fork offset instead of steepening the headtube angle, relative to a similar 26" bike.

Mmmmm......well. Kinda. That's really not quite it. What Fisher wanted was to eliminate toe overlap and have decent steering. The big misconception that folks have about G2 is that it is "twitchy", "quick", "fast steering". etc. It isn't.

To eliminate toe overlap in smaller sizes, Fisher had to convince Trek to back him up on buying the tooling for Fox to do a longer offset. Not only did Trek let him do that, they got Rock Shox on board as well. Trek/Fisher paid for all of the machine tooling to do this.

So now Fisher had a longer offset, and to compensate for the increased instability, the correct head angle had to be used to bring things back to a more nuetral steering feel that Fisher hoped 26"er freaks moving over to 29"ers would get on with out of the gate. This is what G2 steering is all about on 29"ers. Of course, they re-worked 26 inch geometry while they were at it to correct some cornering problems Fisher R&D weren't happy with all along with "G1", and they could do that now that new tooling was being done for 29"ers anyway.

The rest of the 29"er industry now had a chance to revisit geometry as well. No longer were suspension fork offsets locked in to the old 38mm that the original Reba had. Of course, Fox was in the 29"er game now, and they hit it right outta the gate with the 46mm offset, which was an influence of the Fisher deal. Now all 29"er companies could help to get a quicker feeling steering than the older offsets/head angles would allow. Sure, you could go 73 degrees with 38mm offset and get a similar trail figure, but in practice these bikes rode not so great, since the front wheel was "tucked under" the rider more instead of kicked out front, which not only makes forks work better, but eliminates the aforementioned toe overlap issues, which 73 degree angles made worse.

I did a ton of experimentation on my own with offsets, head angle, and different axle to crown measurements, and basically what the results were indicating to me were that the 29"er wheel, due to its greater gyroscopic forces, and therefore inherent stability, allows for a wider range of "what works" for head angles, fork offsets, and resulting trail measurements. For instance, I just rode home on my OS Bikes Blackbuck, parallel 74 degree head/seat tube angles, 51mm offset, trail figure of approx 55mm.

Twitchy? Unrideable? Nope. Quick yes. But 29"er wheels let me get away with this.

YMMV

 

I keep hearing about how great the new Gary Fisher 29ers are because of their G2 geometry. Are the rave G2 reviews out-dated by now? In other words, is G2 geometry still superior to Niner or Salsa or Specialized or Company "X" geometry?

I wouldn't say that it's (GF G2 geometry) either superior, nor inferior.... it's simply a different path leading to a similar end result... my opinion is this: ride a Fisher 29er and ride a few others... get what fits and rides the best to YOU!!!

Personally I like the way fishers ride, some people like them, some people don't... just like anything else! Personally, I really like the Fisher and Specialized 29's, both the fit and ride. On the other hand, I didn't like the Kona 29er @ all... But I'm sure somebody likes 'em!

 

Key difference: between accidentally and purpose-driven figures.
There are steeper HTA's out there, but they all come back from it eventually. VooDoo, Salsa Mamacita, Intense Spyder. You'd be amazed how stable ( no hands mammy) yet nimble an old skyle citybike handles, despite 500mm or so chainstays and lots of nagative handlebar reach.

Are you kidding me... you think Fisher decided on their geometry through some sort of deliberate effort and everyone else just plucked a figure out of the air?

C'mon, face it. You like the Fisher geometry. Doesn't mean it's the only way to solve the dilemma of how to make a 29er both quick and stable.

 

It was only the first year you couldn't get the GF/G2 Offset forks from RS and Fox I believe you can buy these already if not soon.

I have a 69degree FS 69er running RS Reba 38mm offset forks without a slow issue and super stable suites me just fine.

 

the G2 is proprietary and the forks are unavailable other than on a GF/G2. It allows the head angle to be 68 or 69 and yet the contact patch on the tire is still where it needs to be for sharp handling. since this allows for a longer bike you still have to manage it thru switchbacks. Riding slack head angles is a recent thing (last 5 years or so) and was made popular from FR and suspension bikes. For the longest time the formula was 71/73, so having a 29er at 72 deg. isn't bad. From having a superfly I know the feeling is fast. I rode a few 29ers with the steeper head angles and never felt like getting one.

 

You make it sound as if all other bikes are ineffective or dangerous by comparison. Steepest headtube angles I'm aware of are on Niners, and folks aren't killing themselves due to the twitchiness. My Pivot, which has a half-degree slacker headtube angle still handles plenty quick enough is anything but twitchy. Lot's of 29ers are built w/ a 71 degree headtube angle and are plenty quick enough AND very, very stable, too.

Like I said, G2 was a different (not better) solution to the same problem.

Key difference: between accidentally and purpose-driven figures.
There are steeper HTA's out there, but they all come back from it eventually. VooDoo, Salsa Mamacita, Intense Spyder. You'd be amazed how stable ( no hands mammy) yet nimble an old skyle citybike handles, despite 500mm or so chainstays and lots of nagative handlebar reach.

 

Indeed. A quick steering "simple geometry" bike with steep head tube angle, ended up SHORT, contrary to what one would expect from a big wheeled bike. It gets away with a lot, but leaves things to be desired. G2 solves that. I was told they tested many combinations of head tube angles and offset, and not knowing what they were riding, many riders came to the same (shocking) preference. Loooong front center, sufficient quikness and awesome stability. Nothing bike makers didn't know back in the 1900's, but it sure works for contemporary mountainbikes. These had come to their typical measurement only by coincidence anyway. 26" wheels because kids had bikes with those, that came with fat tires. 38mm forks because, well, someone thought it was a good idea at the time, for that wheelsize, and the head angle in fashion. Then 29" happened, and 38mm was copied blindly. It was at first found to result in "sluggish handling" (not as popular an opinion anymore), step head angles were "needed". Steeper the better. That made 29" bikes nervous and twitchy. We sought help first in offset (aah), then offset (ooooooh). Then, Fisher really give thus two a marriage (aah, ooooooh). Anyway.

You make it sound as if all other bikes are ineffective or dangerous by comparison. Steepest headtube angles I'm aware of are on Niners, and folks aren't killing themselves due to the twitchiness. My Pivot, which has a half-degree slacker headtube angle still handles plenty quick enough is anything but twitchy. Lot's of 29ers are built w/ a 71 degree headtube angle and are plenty quick enough AND very, very stable, too.

Like I said, G2 was a different (not better) solution to the same problem.