Nonsense. Toured on Nomad 45s and they were fucking great in that role.[/quote]
Indeed they’re the perfect Long Haul Trucker tires
looool
looool[/quote]
looool[/quote][/quote]
low trail: yes need to try with load. no I don’t need to try without. ridden enough bikes to know that a trail closer to 6.25 works better for how I sit on and ride a bike compared to one closer to 5.5 so going anywhere under that is not going to give me all of it. to each their own but I’m going to side with Ernesto over Rene on this one.
wheel stiffness: you wrong, straight up… back end on ftw is not a noodle at all. however it does have VERY tight tolerance for tire space (<5mm) due to non custom yoke. 10x135 fixed that. It’s real. Get your I9 hub this way and you will see the way. you’re right about purpose behind true thruaxles but that does not change the fact that 10x135 rws is loads stiffer than standard qr. Your big biek has ti people problems which rws is just not able to compensate for.
tire size. you’re right that the option for a 2.1 would be nice as well and if I can squeeze more room for one with a custom yoke I will. if not… 1.8 works great. 1.8 renegades at 30/35psi give a surprisingly good amount of grip in the turns and are fast as hell on hardpack. If I was spending more time on rooty stuff a 2.1 rocket ron/racing ralph would be better but if the day called for that I would just grab a mountain bike (as I assume Mig would as well).
Rock n roads are exceptionally mediocre atmo. it’s an ancient design. the skinny stuff from Specialized puts them to shame. Cool that they are doing a 650 for guys who effed up and built 650 monster cross bikes though.
tubeless. yes, lots of tire options in 650b over 2.0. None in the 28-40mm range though right? Why would you willingly select a wheel size for a monstercross bike that does not have tires that are remotely in the cross sizeway for everything besides singletrack?
rollover: yes, there is the tradeoff between flick and roll for sure and ironically enough I prefer 650b for my actual mountain bike for this reason. but that has to do with how flickable works with weight further back on the bike. but yeah… rollover and more bb drop and same bb height has it’s benefits as well and on a more cross geo bike works better. would also stipulate for the record that bigger tires / lower pressure do increase yolo feels but for me that ends when the singletrack ends.
What this really comes down to though is I seem to take snap over plane in general which is surely just a product of my love of crit racing.
The 650b Ritchey Tom Swift is 28mm & TLR (and an absolute bitch to mount on ZTR 355 rims.) And I’ve got 6 months of tubeless on TLUR Hutchinson Confreries @ 32mm.
So there are some (one, if rube goldberg tubeless doesn’t count) options in the 28-40mm range.
Those handlebars look a hell of a lot like mustache bars.
Ernesto wasn’t riding fat tires (though Rene prob didn’t have much over 38 available to him)
Jumping to say 35mm of trail is not in the ballpark or even playing the same game as choosing from 72/72.5/73/73.5 and 43/45/47/50
If your rim was moving around close to 5mm JRA without the 10mm thru-bolt, then yes the stays were noodling around. Clamp force at the dropouts isn’t what fixes it, upping the diameter does – it’s the same kind of problem as spoke tension vs. spoke gauge.
Aluminum has a third the stiffness of steel in the same cross section, Ti is a little over half that of steel but aluminum has the advantage of fancy shaped stays being available. You used the same fix as I did on my Ti bike, it’s ok!
I was riding a 2.1 burt/ron combo at 15psi tubeless and I guarantee you they’re faster, lighter, and grippier (though the ron tread started to walk and understeer when cornering at 40mph on pavement)
You don’t live in California or other wildwest terrain, it’s perfect for that shit. The Hakkapelita connected tread does a pretty good job of not annoying you on the road while still having a lot of depth for loose decomposing rock. It would be a lot nicer if it was multi-compound though.
Not what it’s for at all. They’re making it for people who built Heine-rando and Riv-fop bikes around Hetres with fenders. All the monstercross 650bikes have room for at least XC tires.
Why the hell would you ride 33mm knobbies unless you were restricted to that size by the rulebook, the production bikes that result from it, or social courtesy? I’m sure there’s plenty of cross race courses where a 33mm tubular really is better for everyone, but that’s not what these bikes are for.
I guess you don’t have any dirt road descents that last longer than a few minutes or involve riding over anything bigger than a grape
THEN YOU’LL LIKE LOW TRAIL BRO
More snap than you can actually handle, especially unloaded. Pass people on the inside all day! It makes a bike with 2" tires feel like a crit bike, to the point where you can outcorner even those tires at low pressures sometimes.
Not JRA, going ham but that’s beside the point. The point is that it fixed it and the whole reason it even came up is that I’m suggesting that the suggestion that there is enough tangible difference in wheel stiffness between 650 and 29 is bunk and that hub/frame interface, even in this manner trumps it. With current setup there is nil tire rub which is my whole point. High flange hub, cx-ray spokes, reynolds carbon xc rim with standard qr. Rub under standing load. Exact same setup with 10mm rws. No rub under any load. 10mm RWS “stiffens” a wheel by proxy.
[quote=JUGE FREDD]
I was riding a 2.1 burt/ron combo at 15psi tubeless and I guarantee you they’re faster, lighter, and grippier (though the ron tread started to walk and understeer when cornering at 40mph on pavement)[/quote]
On trail and rougher atv trails, yes.
On fire road around here (which is indeed probably different than fire road in pnw), no.
Accelerating out of turns, no.
On the mix of pavement, singletrack, grass, bumpy hard grass, and dirt training loop by my house, no.
[quote=JUGE FREDD]
You don’t live in California or other wildwest terrain, it’s perfect for that shit. The Hakkapelita connected tread does a pretty good job of not annoying you on the road while still having a lot of depth for loose decomposing rock. It would be a lot nicer if it was multi-compound though.[/quote]
Would be even better if it was a Specialized Renegade or even a Maxxis Ikon for that matter. In the summer all our trails turn to dry dusty decomposing rock and hardpack.
So yeah a 650 version of that is for guys that fucked up and are trying to compensate or take the homercar approach to the next level and/or are waiting with crossed fingers for something like the Renegade in 650.
[quote=JUGE FREDD]
Why the hell would you ride 33mm knobbies unless you were restricted to that size by the rulebook, the production bikes that result from it, or social courtesy? I’m sure there’s plenty of cross race courses where a 33mm tubular really is better for everyone, but that’s not what these bikes are for.[/quote]
Says you. I say a smarter approach to the monstercross concept is to not deviate drastically from the cross blueprint allowing for tossing some skinny tires on there to race an actual cross race.
[quote=JUGE FREDD]
THEN YOU’LL LIKE LOW TRAIL BRO
More snap than you can actually handle, especially unloaded. Pass people on the inside all day! It makes a bike with 2" tires feel like a crit bike, to the point where you can outcorner even those tires at low pressures sometimes.[/quote]
Was referring to rear triangle behavior not steering. I find a wandering front wheel to be extremely distracting when racing. I’m probably not alone on this.
Fredd v Endpoint geo poetry slam might need its own thread.
The current title is misleading.
-popcorn.gif-
Nope, waiting for magical 29er porteur geo to drop out of this one
Not going to happen.
Pick a side and get a bike already.
Fred and I will never agree. We are far to dedicated in advocating for our particualr wheel size / trail political parties.
Plus he’s wrong.
a lot more like a curvy dirt drop atmo (re: mustache bars on the old pukebacker)
Tc: I’ll probably never get a bike in trying to describe here but this is all valuable info for the internets
Here you go:
Silver Falls project bike by Tysasi, on Flickr
[quote=Endpoint]Not going to happen.
Pick a side and get a bike already.
Fred and I will never agree. We are far to dedicated in advocating for our particualr wheel size / trail political parties.
Plus he’s wrong.[/quote]
You’re both wrong. Fucking high trail vs. low trail motherfuckers. There is an ideal amount of trail and that’s 58mm, which handles like a dream unloaded and manages to do okay with a little front load.
100% correct. Tho wide dishless flange spacing is forreal
What it’s stiffening is the rear triangle! When you fixed the rub with the same wheel in the same dropouts, it’s because the stays are more rigidly connected to each other and can’t flex as much anymore. It’s not about fretting at the hub/dropout interface, that’s a side effect.
[quote=Endpoint][quote=JUGE FREDD]
I was riding a 2.1 burt/ron combo at 15psi tubeless and I guarantee you they’re faster, lighter, and grippier (though the ron tread started to walk and understeer when cornering at 40mph on pavement)[/quote]
On trail and rougher atv trails, yes.
On fire road around here (which is indeed probably different than fire road in pnw), no.
Accelerating out of turns, no.
On the mix of pavement, singletrack, grass, bumpy hard grass, and dirt training loop by my house, no. [/quote]
Dude they’re a cm bigger IRL and even the 700c ones are still slightly lighter, with a casing more supple than a normal GB tire, and fantastic multi-compound rubber.
Do you not believe in fast fat tires?
You walked right into this one: my homercar has perfect clearance for CX tubulars, and I have a carbon fork for it that loses the dyno/rack stuff, raises the BB, and gives it 72deg/45mm geo.
But the only benefit to the kind of racer without a dedicated race bike would be some wheel weight savings. I guess your frame design needs the mud clearance from skinnier tires?
You think shortening chainstays by 5% makes a big difference in rear-end stiffness?
(BTW Heiney really likes stiff chainstays, planing is about the front triangle)
We do agree on something
i have no idea what is being talked about in this thread