|   29 is going no where fast | Fatnslow
Dec 30, 2003 1:59 PM | | I ride a KM and think it rules but have been disappointed at the lack of product developement in terms of both tires and forks. It seems as though Marzocchi and WB were quick to come out with forks although only WB got it even remotely right. As of late, nothing! On the tire front, my WTBs are fine but is it too much to ask for a 2.3? After the initial onset of 29 tires, nothing new. Unfortunately it appears as though the 15 minutes are up. It is sad that the 29ner is going the way of the CB radio. God knows I love my KM but how about a fork that can take real trail riding and some tires to go with it.
Discouraged,
Fatnslow
ps Yeah, I know Speedgoat has the "new" asylum - Chris is cool but this does not mean that the 29 movement is progressing. |
| Mine goes everywhere fast...... | AK Ken
Dec 30, 2003 2:02 PM | | and if you want more choices, spend more money--encourage your pals to do the same. The manufacturers have to make a living, and if there's more market, there'll likely be more choices.
Ken |
| re: 29 is going no where fast | Fatnslow
Dec 30, 2003 2:09 PM | | Do you think it is because everyone realizes that 29 bikes handle like crap, dont acceperate worth a damn, and generally are best suited for the bike path? Just a thought. |
| re: 29 is going no where fast | ..::Nightfire::..
Dec 31, 2003 3:25 AM | | My 29er handles far from crap. Just a case of getting the right geometry.
P::.. |
| re: 29 is going no where fast | Fatnslow
Dec 30, 2003 2:11 PM | | Dear above moron,
Taking my name is not cool. I am the only truly fat and slow rider out here. |
| Nothing like having a flame-fest with yourself | shiggy©®
Dec 30, 2003 4:52 PM | | All three "Fatnslow" posts come from the same IP address - 12.40.175.194
You really should not call yourself a moron. |
| nice websleuthing shiggy!... | donkey
Dec 31, 2003 12:19 PM | | I suspected that was probably the case. |
| Easy to do | shiggy©®
Dec 31, 2003 2:35 PM | | When you click on the little head  next to the poster's name you get the IP address and other profile info. |
| Really? | AK Ken
Jan 1, 2004 1:49 PM | | I click on the head and don't see anything resembling an IP number...probably just operator error on my part, but it ain't happening.
How's the new year look in the tire shop?
Plowed snow all day yesterday, skies cleared last nite, -24 degrees here this morning.
Ken |
| oops! sorry... | shiggy©®
Jan 1, 2004 3:23 PM | | ... looks like that is part of the moderator info. Not for general viewing.
Still, you can choose "View Source" from your browser menu then search for "IP" to find the number.
Warm and snug in the "shiggy shack". Wet & slushy outside and around 35°. |
| Ah.....thank you. | AK Ken
Jan 1, 2004 11:30 PM | | Not that I need to know that kinda stuff, I was just curious.
Broke my own rule about not riding colder than 20 below today--only minus 22, but it was so pretty outside I had to go. Rode a 27 geared single speed 5 inch travel rigid bike that had sat outside all nite.
Ken |
| call and email | qtip
Dec 30, 2003 2:20 PM | | the companies that make the products and let your opinions be heard. I just shot off an email to WTB today inquiring about fatter tires and here is what they said....
Dear Scott,
WTB will only offer the Moto Raptor 2.1 and the Nano Raptor 2.1 in 29" for
the 2004 season. We are considering to offer a bigger 29" tire for the
2005 season. Largely, it depends on the overall success of the 29" market
and the number of inquiries we receive like yours. Interestingly I have
heard about clearance issues on the rear of the Karate Monkey with 2.1
tires. Do you think a larger tire would fit your bike, say 2.3"?
Thanks for your interest,
Fred Falk
WTB |
| This answer from WTB is interessting ... | phatlizard
Dec 30, 2003 3:18 PM | | There has to be another bike/frame like the KM - seems to me that Surly's share of the market is 90%!
You don't have to give me lectures now I know that it is not really the case. But if a product manager from a bike part producer checks this message boards he will shake his head and says: "Oh damn this scene has exactly one bike they ride plus some real weired custom frame builders ...!"
If I'd be in their shoes I wouldn't come up with a new tire either.
Gary Fisher walked half the way and stopped now - probably for some good reasons - and that isn't helpfull either!
phaty |
| This answer from WTB is interessting ... | ..::Nightfire::..
Dec 31, 2003 3:36 AM | | WTB comment about the KM is not suprising. I think Surley may want to think about that pointless bend that seems to be in the wrong place..
Maybe we need somebody to start making budget 29er frames. There is a big gap in the market for an Asian built alloy 29er frame. Or maybe another steel frame. On-one have built 1, I don't know if there is a possibility of them going into production.
The Surly has loads of room for improvement, but as a profit making company why would you spend time and money on development of a product when you have such a large market share already.
P::.. |
| A budget alloy Monkey alternative is already available | dgdixon
Dec 31, 2003 10:28 AM | | Van Dessel's Buzz Bomb is a well made disc-ready aluminum 29" frame that is lighter, cheaper ($300 direct from Van Dessel), and has even more setup options than the K-Monkey. With the adjustable vertical rear dropouts, it can run gears, Rohloff speed hub or a single speed (with no need to move the rear disc calipers to change the wheel like on the Monkey).
Here is a link to their site:
http://www.vandesselsports.com/b_buzzBomb.shtml |
| seems like those buzz bombs have... | donkey
Dec 31, 2003 10:53 AM | | a pretty strange geometry. I wonder if the chainstays are really as long as they look on their website? Also, the top tube lengths seem a little short, 22.4 for a 19. Otherwise, they seem like a great deal, I would pounce if it weren't for those strange figures....anyone have any feedback on actual measurements? |
| Well, your TT figure is a little off... | fy'nætik (aka næstep)
Dec 31, 2003 4:58 PM | | I've got a 19" frame, and here's what I've got:
ETT is 22.9" measured to the center of the top of the head tube, or 22.3" measured to the center of the head tube at the TT junction (I believe the 22.9" figure is the correct method).
My effective chainstay length is currently 18.7" with the sliding dropout nearly maxed out to the rear. Subtract approximately 1/2" by sliding the dropouts forward.
BB clearance (not BB drop) is about 10.8", but don't take that with too much precision since I measured on carpet.
I've said it before: The Buzz Bomb is the most well balanced frame I've ever had the pleasure to own. I don't know if it's due specifically to the frame's geometry or to the 29"er concept in general, but I love the way this bike can get me up steeps without the front end lifting yet descend confidentally on. The 90° stem I'm set up with gives me a shorter cockpit than my norm (slightly more upright riding position), but I love it. |
| Dude - | 2melow
Dec 31, 2003 6:17 PM | | how do you pronounce your new handle? |
| not really cheaper, and it only comes in 2 sizes. | offroadie
Dec 31, 2003 11:34 AM | | my lbs quoted me tree-fiddy for a km frame & fork. i'm sure they'd give me the frame for tree hundy even, sans fork, and since i'd save shipping the km would be less than the buzz-bomb.
i'm not harshin' on the buzz bomb in any way, though... those sliding dropouts rule. but for my money, when the black km's are available at the end of january i'm going that route. |
| not really cheaper, and it only comes in 2 sizes. | Rigid29erSSguy
Dec 31, 2003 10:19 PM | | For what VD is blowing the Buzz out these days, I doubt the KM is cheaper. Tell you what, I own a 17" and 19" buzz and just purchased a 18" KM. The Dif is the KM has a White Bro fork. So.... Let me be the judge and I'll let you know.
Got to agree with the other guy so far... the Buzz IS like no other bike I've ridden. It is so responsive, quick, efficient. It is like my Colnago Dream Plus for your roadies.
Ditch the fork and shifter hard core boys.... its a harsh world out there but your better for it.... !
;) |
| This answer from WTB is interessting ... | BruceBrown
Jan 4, 2004 7:45 AM | | Nigthfire writes:
[I think Surley may want to think about that pointless bend that seems to be in the wrong place..]
Do you really feel that the seat tube curve is pointless? I think those of us who have been riding the KM frame might find that curve beneficial to our riding. Mine handles like a dream.
Here is what Surly says about that "pointless bend":
=====
The most obvious frame component of the Karate Monkey is the curved seat tube. This feature allows us to use shorter chainstays without worrying about the rear tire rubbing on the seat tube when the wheel is jammed all the way forward in the dropouts. Shorter chainstays mean quicker handling and better traction at the rear.
=====
Handling and traction improvement being pointless?
Nightfire continues writing:
[Maybe we need somebody to start making budget 29er frames.]
Considering a KM frame only costs about $350 - $399 from the budget dealers, just how low in price do you want to see a frame to equal "budget"?
BB |
| Dear Discouraged, | Bigwheel
Dec 30, 2003 4:45 PM | | Let me see if I have this right, you are riding a KM and think it "rules" but you are discouraged with the lack of product development in terms of tires and forks by the manufacturers. Ok, that is your perogative, but try to think back to 5 yrs ago when there was only one 29" tire and "no" forks and be glad that you were not involved with a love affair with the 29" wheel then because this is all that you would have had to work with.
img src=""
Or go back even further to the early 80's when there very few mtn. bikes of any size around. What makes product development happen? People being discouraged or people getting it done by doing it? So far I have only seen good things come out of the 29" movement, and having been around the first go round with the 26" too I have to say that nothing happens over nite. It was at least 10 yrs before there was a suspension system available to the public (which everyone thought was a joke) for the 26" mtn. bike and that movement also started out with only a few tires too.
So patience. Ride what you got and be glad that it "rules" for you. You have already spoken to the industry by buying a KM and fitting it out to your specs along with the others that have done so. Before long there will be more items available due to the diligence of riders that have some industry pull and the shear numbers of people getting on the bus and buying into the 29 like yourself, but it isn't going to happen overnight, just like the last time.
It would help to have some backing from the mags for sure, but it seems like they have their own problems due to the fact that the Internet is a much better vehicle for circulating information in a more timely fashion and they seem to be hurting at this time and may not snap out of it, ever.
And don't think the industry is not looking in on this site, because they are, and a positive outlook would show better than a bunch of whining for sure. |
| re: 29 is going no where fast??????????????? | cat 5 pro
Dec 30, 2003 5:05 PM | | Why do you need bigger wider heavier tires? I ditched them big fat
overweight tires for some nice 340 gram 40c cross tires.
When you learn how to ride, you will find that you don't need anything
bigger. |
| Spoken like a true weight-weenie! Us big people like big tires! | Padre
Dec 30, 2003 5:09 PM | | Those cross tires pinch flat faster than a weight-weenie grabs his gram counter.... |
| NO! Spoken like a true cyclecross racer! | cat 5 pro
Jan 1, 2004 4:19 PM | | 40c tires are huge next to the 30c tires i run on my cross bike. |
| Which 40c cross tires? :-) I need a light rear... NM | Cloxxki
Dec 30, 2003 11:38 PM | | |
| I spoke with Nat Ross and a Fisher wrench @ Interbike... | 2melow
Dec 31, 2003 6:15 PM | | and they both have had luck running a Nano front/IRC Mythos 700x42 rear (semi technichal) or even Mythos 42 front and rear depending on the course. You'll have to look up the weights though - I have no clue. But if the pro's are using them then they are light enough for you. |
| If 29 indeed has advantages | mv
Dec 31, 2003 2:38 PM | | If 29 indeed has advantages the racers will show that in 2004. The rest will be history after that... |
| MV is right | fastskiguy2
Dec 31, 2003 4:38 PM | | Do you think a World Cup win would be worth running 29" wheels even if the sponsor didn't "support" the decision to run'em? I'm not sure, a WC win would be something but a guy has to pay his bills too. Still, a few wins and MB Action will be saying they're the best thing since No Tubes! |
| MV is wrong actually | Bigwheel
Dec 31, 2003 6:02 PM | | The history of the 29" wheel started almost 5 years ago with the introduction of the WTB 52/47 Nanoraptor, while the use of the 700c wheeled bike offroad goes back over 100 yrs. The fact that it will now we allowed to be used in UCI sanctioned events will only be a chapter.
There have been enough races run already on 29" versus 26" to show that there probably is not going to be an advantage on world cup type XC courses with riders of equal horsepower. However that should not rule out or overshadow the fact that the 29" wheel does work its mojo for some riders, most of whom are not racers to begin with. But not doddering old farts either, just folks who enjoy a good ride.
"Of all the paths to take in life, make sure some of them are dirt." unknown |
| MV is wrong actually | MV
Jan 1, 2004 2:38 PM | | Maybe I,m indeed wrong. Faster not neccessarily better in real life. |
| MV is wrong because............. | donkey
Jan 2, 2004 1:25 PM | | What other teams would consider racing a 29er at WC other than Fisher. Honestly, probably nobody. |
| One other trade team is already 100% committed to 29" | Cloxxki
Jan 3, 2004 2:07 AM | | And more seem to be working on a 29" race bike in secret. Non-Fisher riders HAVE been ordering 29" race-specific parts, why would that be?
Their frame sponsors have been buying Fisher and Nishiki 29" frames, but why would they?
Former Olympic Champion has already raised some eyebrows watching 29" bikes in action and actually trying one for a few moments. I can tell you Bart didn't stretch his career to not excell at the Athens Olympics!
I know that if I had had the legs I sometimes dream of, and able to participate in the past Lugano Worlds, I'd have LOVED to be one of the few 29" riders their. Seeing it on TV, I'm positive that it would matter around 30s a lap me. It's too extreme there to ignore the rolling properties of 29" over big rocks, and the decreased endo factor over steeps.
I was too ill with astma and DNF at my 2003 Nationals, but I tested the course on both my bikes and the 20s difference was there as well. Very bumpy dry, as rock grasslands, some tricky loose sand descends, and 11% less rolling resistance would really add up on that course. Now is somebody would already come out with a 29" tread based on a 26" fast rolling example!
It may just be more fun to some, not really faster, but for me 29" finally takes away the disadvantage of being tall. Being 1m94 and 85kg, no matter how technically able and strong, make it unlikely to stay with 1m70 riders on technical steeps, up or down. On twisty flats I won't be much faster than I was on 26", the placement of the borders (trees) already mark my limit, I'll now just float through them more fluently and with less rolling resistans.
Maybe unwise to promote the 29" wheel in way on here, but it's my true belief that I'll be faster with it, with time. My first 29" experiences made me just as fast, with fewer efford, right now I'm working on going to the max again and get the optimal efficiency from 29", where I think I already found it in 26". 29" Racing Ralph tires would be a more than welcome step in that process, but even without them, my 29" racer won't suffer much from the weight penalty, weighing in at 8,2kg (18lb) rigid or 9,1 (20lb) hardtail, the way it looks now in Excel. I can't see how that bike won't allow me to go faster with the same leg power than on my 26" racers I've been riding over the past years. It'd be pretty dumm for me to invest this way in 29" otherwise, speed is my main reason for going 29", fun I already had to a good extent riding 26", though I'll admit it's gotten much better still. |
| Seems like 28" would be faster on a World Cup course | tl1
Jan 3, 2004 6:45 PM | | Are those legal? Like a fat cross tire. |
| You clearly haven't seen the Worlds footage (long) | Cloxxki
Jan 4, 2004 1:42 AM | | I'd love to see someone try that course with <42mm tires, and try not to flat them. It just makes no sense there, and contempary XC tires in wide sizes now only have slight weight penalties over narrower ones, and even roll faster. Schwalbe often find the 2.25" tire to be the fastest rolling one. Super narrow tires IMO can be good for smooth yet muddy trails, but on rocks and roots you want some meat to go over it fast.
Narrow tires CAN be run at high pressures to roll well on road bits and smooth trails, but will never offer the required grip to stay with the other riders on descends. From the looks of it, I'd have picked Jones front/Nano rear for the Lugano course, which even was bone dry.
I think the weight penalty of fatter tires is only worth taking away by using cross tires on really lame courses. For my oncoming March season opener I'm already looking for the ideal ~42mm rear tire, up front my rigid bike will still need some Jones meat to make me fast.
Many worldcup rider seem to have been using 330/400g 26x1.9-2.0 tires, which are so suptle that they roll like cross tires on the road yet offer sufficient grip for agressive MTB'ing. Translated to 29", these are 365-440g tires that don't exist yet by a long shot. Lightest true purposely designed 29" race tire that is available to racers now, is the 26x2.1" (more like 1.85" in real) Maxxis Highroller at 550g. Next is the Bontrager AcX Jones at just over 560g, but that's a 2.2" (like a true 2.0-2.1").
Once racers get the use of 365g Maxxis Flyweights, 380g Schwalbe Fast Freds 2.0", 550g Schwalbe Fast Freds 2.35", 500g Schwalbe Racing Ralphs 2.1" etc, we'll probably see fewer and fewer occasion like Ryder Hesjedal choosing the 42mm Mythos Slicks. I can't imagine that old design would still roll/ride better than a really high-end 29x1.9+" at the same weight.
Still, the best tubular tire maker of the world, the Dutch successor of Frech A. Dugast, is aiming at making a ~40mm tubular that is supposed to win the Olympics this year, by a rider that's prepared to pay his development costs in a set of course-specific designed sew-ups. Pick your 26" tread and he'll stick it to the fastest tubular casing on earth. |
| Probably right | tl1
Jan 4, 2004 8:45 PM | | I don't really follow WC XC racing enough to know. The ones I have seen on TV looked pretty smooth though.
"Schwalbe often find the 2.25" tire to be the fastest rolling one." BTW, I just got a 2.25" Racing Ralph that weighs 499 grams. I had to double check it to make sure it was really a 2.25" and not a 2.10". My other two 2.25" RRs weigh 564 and 571 grams. Those are very fast rolling, yet grippy tires and if I had a 29" bike I'd sure want one of those in a 29" size! |
| Well... | terminaut
Jan 2, 2004 1:46 PM | | When you learn how to ride, you will find that you don't need anything bigger.
That may well be true for you - but once you learn how to do more than just ride, you'll realize that having bigger tires would be an enabler for more ways to enjoy your bike.
...and yeah I ride a cross bike with 32c tires in back.
|
| |
