![]() |
|
Reader's Rides Gallery Show us your Fat. Keep your clothes on, though. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
New Member
Join Date: September 4th, 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 8
|
![]()
Bike #2: 1993 Ti Fat Chance Size small, about 15 inch, center to center (seat tube)
This was an upgrade to the previously pictured '89 Wicked. Enjoy! -travis |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1st, 2006
Location: rio de janeiro
Posts: 1,043
|
![]()
awesome. so.. the ti has a 110 stem while the wicked gets a 140? which one rides the best?
__________________
wanted: ride time. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
New Member
Join Date: September 4th, 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 8
|
![]()
Honestly, they ride similiarly, the wicked seems more responsive, quicker, but it could just be because of the lack of suspension. (getting bounced around more)
I do want to put on a rigid fork on the Ti. That would make the handling equal or better than the wicked. Talk about neo-retro. There used to be a 140mm control tech on the Ti, but I changed it to get more centered over the bike. Feels better. This is a bike I can truly say, will not be replaced or sold *ever*. -travis |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|