Stan’s NoTubes ZTR 355 32-hole Rims Review

Weight as built: 2556 grams (full set, with tires, sealant, no cassette, no skewers, no rotors)

MSRP as built: $720.00

Wheel weight only (as quoted):  1420 grams

NoTubes products aren’t new on the mountain biking scene, but they sell one of those product lines that generate a lot of controversy in the cycling universe. Much like all other subjective controversies, you’ll get a different story from every mountain biker you speak to. Some love them unconditionally, talking about their tubeless setup like they witnessed its birth. Others will tell you it’s all hype and you’re wasting your time on a potentially dangerous product. Well, after polling my local group of dedicated bike geeks and digging through other popular (and generally misinformed–no names, not yet) mountain bike product review websites, I’ve concluded that most riders criticizing Stan’s products typically have their wheels set up incorrectly–be it for their weight or for their style of riding. It seems to be a weight saving issue–it’s always the 250-pound rider that wants to sport the Olympic lightweight racing rim, and then bitch when they get a blowout or can’t keep the tire seated to the rim in a tight corner. Does anyone else find it strange that the Clydesdales are always the weight weenies? I’m no scientist, despite holding dual PhDs in Sweet Lovin’ and Good Times, but there seems to be a correlation worth investigating. Also, let the record show that I float slightly above or below the Clydesdale high-water mark of 200 lbs., so I take my weight-to-durability ratio very seriously.  Read more

Carver Bikes 96′er Mountain Bike Review

Let me begin by stating that this review is for the Carver 96’er frameset. However, I could do a review on so many items on the bike, since I have never ridden any of them before. I wanted this build to be new and fresh as I always do, rather than build with components I am familiar with. In this way, I am able to have a broad knowledge of many brands. I try to be unbiased when evaluating different items, and judge them on their own merit. However, I will state that I would not change a single component on the bike – everything performed flawlessly!

I have been riding a rigid single speed 29’er for the past several months, so I am very familiar with riding 29” wheels. They are great for rolling trails, but I would prefer a 26” bike for racing or very technical singletrack. One of my good friends has become a 96’er convert, and now has a rigid Carver single speed, as well as another brand’s full suspension bike. I was intrigued by the 96’er idea, especially having come from a motocross background. A larger tire up front will roll more easily, which is why so many people are now riding 29”-wheeled bikes. On the other hand, it does take more effort to spin up a rear 29” wheel, so technical riding can suffer when acceleration out of corners is required. Companies making the 96’er-style of bicycle use this as the rationale for using a 29” front wheel and a 26” rear. After building Tom’s Carver 96’er single speed, I knew that would have to be my next frame! However, all three of my current mountain bikes are single speeds, so I knew that I wanted gears. I plan to race again (2 or 3 x 9), but in the meantime, I felt that a 1×9 would serve me perfectly in the Atlanta area, since I could ride most trails on a single speed. Given the benefits, a 96’er 1×9 would seem to be the perfect all-around bike.

As built, the Carver was 25.5 lbs. with pedals – very respectable, considering the fact that it had a 29” front wheel and fork. I was not aiming for a light bike necessarily – after receiving the frame, I bought the Halo rims, knowing that they would be relatively heavy since they were freeride rims. However, I compensated with the other components. I have never personally had Chris King hubs, but I have built dozens of wheels with them. I knew that I wanted the best. I decided to use a 20mm thru-axle just because. Originally I was going to get a FOX fork, but they did not have any 29’er forks in stock since they were transitioning to 2010 units. I currently have FOX, Marzocchi, and Rockshox forks on other bikes, so I decided to try the Manitou. I have been riding several models of Avid and Hayes disc brakes, so I wanted to try Magura SL. Finally, I went with the Ritchey carbon bars, stem, and seatpost.

The first thing I noticed about the bike was how responsive it was! The tubeless tires helped, but I was immediately comfortable on the bike. My friend Dave was riding behind me, and he commented several times on how well I was able to flick it around. I actually had to keep reminding myself that it was not a 26”-wheeled bike. It pulled a wheelie much easier than my other 29” bike, and just felt “right.” I was a little reluctant to push heavily into corners at first due to the standard tire converted to tubeless on the front, but my confidence increased as the ride progressed. The harder I pushed the bike, the more it seemed to want! The bottom bracket was super-stiff, and handling was exactly as expected. I have an old Mazda RX7 GSL-SE I am restoring, and this bike reminded me of that car – point it where you want it to go and it does the rest!

Descending was zero effort, and I felt perfectly confident at any speed. I will admit that the tires and brakes were a large factor, but the geometry of the frame was the main reason. Climbing was equally as impressive. I tried the new “Monster Mile” at the Fort Yargo trails in Winder for the first time, not having any experience with it. There is a decent-sized “horseshoe drop” which was the most technical part of the ride. The bike dug in and climbed out of the Georgia clay without incident – I never put a foot down on that entire trail!

I can’t say enough about how happy I am with the bike – it is the PERFECT mountain bike for almost every trail in Georgia! I am definitely a 96’er convert now, and that will be the bike I use mainly. Sure, the components were incredible, but they were only as good as the foundation. A painted Carver 96’er frame is $399 MSRP. I would take that frame any day over a $1,500 carbon 26” frameset! It was stiff and responsive with perfect handling. What more can I say? The bike was amazing!

Frame: Carver 96’er
Fork: Manitou Minute-29 Super 09 Absolute T-A – 100mm travel
Rims: Halo Freedom Disc (29” front, 26” rear) with Stan’s NoTube kits
Hubs: Chris King ISO Disc (20mm front thru-axle)
Spokes: Black Wheelsmith double-butted with blue alloy nipples
Brakes: Magura Marta SL (180 front and 160 rear)
Headset: Chris King NoThread
Shift Lever: SRAM X.0
Rear Derailleur: SRAM X.0
Chain: SRAM hollow pin
Stem: Ritchey WCS carbon
Seatpost: Ritchey WCS carbon
Handlebar: Ritchey Super Logic carbon
Tires: Kenda Nevegal (standard 29” front and 26” UST rear)
Saddle: Selle Italia SLR Troy Lee Design
Grips: Oury
Pedals: Crank Brothers Egg Beater Ti

Küat Alpha Bike Rack Review

It’s pronounced “KOO-ATT”

I used to think a rack is a rack is a rack. I only cared about mobility, not caring if my bike got scratched or how easy the rack was to install, I just wanted to get to the trail. For years I’ve been tossing bikes in the back of my trusty Toyota, but as my bike wealth grew with my income (marginally), I started looking for ways to transport bikes without damaging them or scratching my truck. When my bikes started costing more than $1000 as so, so many of them do these days, I felt a nagging sense of neglect tossing them willy-nilly into the bed. I’ve tried most or all the tricks: the two-by-four with fork mounts, putting fork mounts on the side of the bed, disassembling the whole bike and squeezing it into the hatchback, roof racks, trunk racks, you name it, I gave it a shot. Right now I’m kicking myself for not trying a trailer hitch rack with my pick-up, for some reason it just didn’t make sense. I have a camper shell on the truck now and I’ve been digging rides from friends with HUGE vehicles when we go for rides, so maybe that’s why. For about a year or so, my buds have been telling me to try one of the hitch-mounted bike racks that have gotten so popular lately. I never considered buying one when I could just mooch off them. Besides, I like being able to drop my tailgate any time I want and sit idly on the back of my truck like the dumb yokel I am.

I did my time as a bike mechanic at the LBS and installed countless racks on more yuppie SUVs than any of you could ever imagine. Not my proudest moments, and I never found a rack I was really impressed with. Most were heavy, ungainly, unsteady, too big or small, or worse, horribly unattractive. I did start noticing the hitch-rack trend gaining popularity, and I feared inevitable hernia operations from lifting the beasts onto our customers like-sized vehicles. Then I lifted the Küat Alpha Rack.  Read more

Julbo Dirt Sunglasses Review

The Precarious blend of Performance and Fashion- Julbo does it

I am a sunglasses freak, an addict, some would consider it a problem. I don’t. It’s my favorite accessory. I’m not into jewelry, watches, “mandals,” or high fashion. I just learned what couture means. I don’t like to be without at least a couple choices for shades. And I’m picky, very picky. Some shades look good but fall off your face while playing hopscotch, others grip your face with a ferocity that would satisfy Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Some look good, but fog up while you’re riding, or give you a headache after a half an hour. Finding one pair of shades that satisfy all the necessary criteria is a personal grail quest–some of us will never find them, even though we know they’re out there.

Yesterday I rode a rough thirty miles wearing the Julbo brand “Dirt” sunglasses, built specifically for mountain biking. The product label boasts mountain bike specific qualities such as “helmet friendly,” and “shock absorbent temples and nose pads.” My quest for the perfect pair of shades still continues, but I feel like I’ve taken one step closer. Let’s talk about what I didn’t like first, it’ll be quick, I liked a lot more than I didn’t: They’re white, which is an easy enough problem to solve, I’ll just order a dark-framed pair; huge white shades are for Paris Hilton and butterfaces. Okay, that’s about it on the negative side, let’s talk about what I liked, broken down into my four criteria to consider when buying shades:

Fit:

When you put on a pair of sunglasses, you shouldn’t know you’re wearing them other than your brain registering that you’re seeing in a different color. No pinching, no uncomfortable rubbing, no ugly red indentions on your nose when you take them off, no headache after a couple hours. For performance shades, here’s the kicker: if you forget you’re wearing them, the fit is good. They also have to stay on while doing whatever it is you do, without having to use one of those horrendously fratty head-straps. The Dirt from Julbo would hang on to an epileptic in an earthquake. One criterion down.

Anti-Fog:

Being able to see is paramount for adventure sports. A lot of optics companies claim their lenses are anti-fog, and I’ve tried most of them. I’ve found less than half actually deliver. I live in the sweltering humidity of Georgia, the perfect testing ground for lenses that claim to be “fogless.” I am a sweaty, dirty, fog-inducing individual. After thirty miles on a humid day in May, I could still see while wearing the Julbos, an unusual experience for me. I didn’t even get any stripes of sweat dripping down the lenses. I don’t understand optics technology very well, I just know that they work or don’t. We all have our personal taste for lenses: Polarized, rose-colored, amber, photochromatic, etc., but the most important aspect is whether you can still see after ripping down a trail or climbing up a rock face. Two criteria down.

Look:

Sunglasses are for protecting your eyes from the sun, right? Well, I guess so, but I will NOT look like a total tool to protect my eyes from harmful UV rays. I’d rather just close them. So my shades gots to look good. This is more difficult than it sounds, and I sympathize with the companies that attempt to make eyewear that functions in both the fashion and performance arenas. Sometimes making something perform well negates the ability to make it look good. But Julbo did it. My wife complimented them the second she saw them, and it’s rare that she wontonly strokes my ego. Julbo’s headquarters are in France, I think that has something to do with their ability to make their shades look good while functioning at the same time. Three criteria down, almost there!!!

Price:

These beauties aren’t cheap ($120-$160), but you get what you pay for. I generally don’t like to break three figures on shades, no matter how great they are I’ll eventually lose or break them. But in this case I feel the price is justified, I can think of other sunglasses companies that charge a lot more for a product inferior to this one. I would rather pay $100 for a piece of gold than pay $50 for a piece of crap. Sometimes, it’s just worth it. I can’t get excited about the price, but I’m willing to pay for this level of craftsmanship.

According to their website, the Julbo brand has been around for more than a century, but they’re considered an “emerging” brand in the performance optics market. I look forward to enjoying and testing more of their product if they’re all as good as their Dirt model of performance eyewear.