Quote from: circoloco on May 11, 2016, 02:49:31 AM
I got quotes for WW frame, fork and wheels just yesterday, via alibaba. How did you order? Amazon, ebay, sobatobikes.com or alibaba?

(Bit OT here, but they finally replied with a tracking number that shows it shipped a week later than promised.)

QuoteI like the WW fork more, it just looks better, more hardcore, which fits the monster bike
But CS has a few pros too: 32mm seatpost, fit for wider wheels, and Peter with his good reputation.

Agreed with all that. I tend to be in-between sizes and this "CS" 19" frame is closer to me than the ICAN but the WW seems to be even better for me.

Quote
Btw. what's so bad about PF92?

Main thing for me right now is no EBB available for singelspeeding. But if I were doing gears, I'd prefer BSA threaded or the bigger bearings of BB30/PF30. (Hopefully T46 catches on though...)

That's funny, Peter sent me a geometry picture that exactly matched ICAN's 17" size but seems to have said he can't get the 19".

This one does look interesting-- it claims a chainstay of 425mm, but the BB92 is a big negative.

(and I've already ordered a WW, hopefully it arrives, they've gone silent).

Congratulations, I hope you enjoy it. Keep us posted on your experiences even if it's not a direct Chiner+.
Your 5 points are sound too. 1) I did the same when I first got into 29er and got a GF Rig. But as to (5) I waited for the black rig over the purple (which also had upgraded components). For 29+ I still want singlespeed so (2) is out. (3) and (4) are a no-go for me this time round. I had to wait for the second Rig to come out, I won't for Stache and the Trek LBS is now entirely unhelpful. I'd still like to ride a Stache, and ideally a Workswell right afterwards. I will probably go for the WW though and watch for a cheap Stache frame.

Have fun and thanks for the thread, it's been informative.

That's a very nice looking bike. Thanks for sharing!

Do you know the final weight?

Also, is that a second frame I see peeking into the first picture? Tell us about that one when you have time.

Tandell offers rigid carbon forks, in both 27.5+, the TD-MF01: http://www.tandellbikes.com/mtb-275-carbon-rigid-forks_p0930.html
which has a 515mm axle-to-crown with 49mm offset.


A 29+ fork not on the website has a 531mm a-c and 49mm offset:


Both are intriguing as suspension-corrected rigid forks for plus-sized frames. The 27.5+ fork might even work for 29+. But both have a slightly shorter offset than the more common 51mm (not sure just how different that might feel). Even more intriguing is the possibility of another frame(s) coming. They have the forks, I hope they get frames soon. Daniel from Tandell answered emails quickly, and he posts on mtbr sometimes.

Does anyone here have any experience with these forks?

Having a hard time posting a reply too...

Geometry diagram #1:


Geometry diagram #2:


Fork diagram:

The ICAN AC290+ (or AC29+) is available as a frame/set: http://www.icanbikes.com/html/MTB/29ER_frame/317.html
or complete: http://www.icanbikes.com/html/MTB/PAINTING_COMPLETE_BIKE/321.html
and for sale at: http://www.icancycling.com/collections/mtb-frame/products/copy-of-29er-frame-mtb-carbon-bike-frame-ac056-15-5-17-5-19-21

Peter at XM CarbonSpeed also has this available (no webpage yet).

I am considering it, but it seems pretty slack already at 68.5 deg HA with a short rigid fork of 490mm a-c, so not really suitable for adding a suspension fork. BB is only PF30; the seatpost is 31.6. The geometry diagrams on the web seem to be for the 15 or 17 inch size. I emailed and got the 19 inch diagrams. System is not taking them as attachments, I'll try to edit and/or add them in the next post.

If you have one, please post a review and pictures.

Quote from: Carbon_Dude on April 07, 2016, 09:07:39 PM
Same here.  Trying to decide between 27.5+ and 29+ for my next bike.

The WW frame is very interesting, at first I thought it was the same frame as Peter has available but upon closer inspection I see the TT shape is different and the dropout has two positions for the rear axle.

EDIT:  I contacted Workswell and requested a geometry chart for their frame and now see that all the dimensions match the geometry chart I received from Peter, both gave me the same drawing.  So the frames are basically identical.  The only difference I can see is the Workswell frame has dropouts that allow the rear axle to be installed in two positions, not sure if the frame Peter sells can have the same dropouts.

Whoa, I just contacted Peter and ICAN and those are the two frames that look identical-- and was about to start a new thread for them. Both chainstays are elevated and the fork is 490mm a-c with a 68.5 deg HA. While the WW (see http://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,832.msg9916.html#msg9916 ) specs a 495 fork at 71.5 HA (for 29+ wheel size).

Old school works! Thanks for doing it. Good to hear that Workswell is accurately reporting their geometries.

Quote from: bxcc on April 05, 2016, 11:29:32 AM
The fork feels like a rigid fork. Fun and painful at the same time. The tires do help though. The A to C measurement is 495mm and with that, the HA should be around 71.5 but I can take the digital level home and see how accurate that is. I am assuming I would take the angle measurement from the imaginary line that runs between the center of the lower headtube hole and the center of the axle?

I think that would measure the angle of the triangle created by the fork offset, and the HA is the angle of just the (extended) head tube line. WW has a measurement shown for a 530 fork, if that's accurate, and I wondered how much steeper it got in reality with the shorter rigid fork. Thanks!



Edit: and I see that WW does spec it at 71.5deg for the 495mm a-c fork. A reality check would be nice if possible. 

How does the fork feel? Can you measure the actual geometry as built, e.g. head angle and axle-to-crown?

It's just a copy of the tr3k stache, right? and not a new/original/researched concept. But I do agree on the spacing.

Get any pics figured out yet? Thanks.

I would agree these latest two frames are exciting but the 148 rear spacing (and 110 front fork) tempers that quite a bit for me. I would have pulled the trigger but for that, now I wonder if I should wait for 142/100 hubs with conversion axles...