Changing it up big

Create New Tag

1/4/2016 3:59 PM

Riding has gotten a bit boring with my current setup. And hopping a 21.25 trails frame when you're only 5'8" is not fun. So going from my trails frame, I think I'm going to go to a Fit WiFi v2 or a Hyper C2. Both come in a more military-esque color and have a 76° headtube angle. The biggest difference between the two is the bb height. The Hyper is sitting at 11.4, and the Fit is a bitt higher up at 11.7. To get to the point, which one would you choose? I'm leaning towards the Hyper because of the lower bb height. Which would you guys choose? My riding has gone from lots of park and dirt to park and street. Which would you guys choose?


1/4/2016 4:24 PM

I would choose the wifi v2.


1/4/2016 4:29 PM

If you like spinning mixed with amplitude I find a taller bb makes spins funner and nosedive better


1/4/2016 4:40 PM

Either would be just fine, Personally I would go with the Fit out of those two, but that is because you won't find a cheap version at walmart.

That's honestly the only reason for me. But I also don't really want such a short rear end. I come from an era where 14" CS was common and considered pretty short.


"Hey anybody ever make that mistake like right when you wake up in the morning and you believe in yourself?" -Kyle Kinane

"BIKES!" -Tom Segura

1/4/2016 4:56 PM

Higher bb high = yes


1/4/2016 5:19 PM

I would chose the hyper it's seems to have a awesome geometry


1/4/2016 5:24 PM

Fit , as the Sunday meme says , I rode one and it was fucking sick . The V2 should only be better and I like Fit parts that I rode , so it should be good .

As well , I think a higher BB is preferable . I'm used to 11.5 and I want higher , something tall so it gets out of the way for grinds and more responsive hopefully , seems like when you do those weird 180s out of grinds and kinda push your bike with your waist and legs , you can notice the BB height and I think a higher one would feel better in moments like that , it's kinda hard to explain though


Instagram : braydenbuckingham
My Cult 2 Short

1/4/2016 5:38 PM

How does a higher bb do for trails and fast riding? My park riding lately is more blasting stuff or gaps to flat.


1/4/2016 10:48 PM

I'd go for the fit, better all rounder. Once you're used to it it'll be fine going big, it just might feel a bit sketchy at first


1/4/2016 11:06 PM

fit's cs is quite short..


1/4/2016 11:19 PM

One more question. I run 175mm cranks and two pegs, would I need shorter cranks so my foot doesn't hit the peg? Would the crank even work on the frame without hitting the cs?


1/5/2016 10:01 AM

biggybuggy wrote:

One more question. I run 175mm cranks and two pegs, would I need shorter cranks so my foot doesn't hit the peg? Would the ...more

I rarely had that problem back when i rode four pegs on a Funday frame. You wouldn't need the shorter cranks.

But personally the wifi V2 is cool to me, it seems like it would be wacky to get used to but really fun after a while.

I really wanna try a frame with a 76 head tube. I feel like it'd be that last bit of help i'd need to start really being comfy in nose manuals but I haven't tried it yet.


References: OneGuyIlluminatiEye, robinson79, Brian Griffin, The Horror Contact, StoreBoughtChild, C_Johnsonbmx, dkTechEthan, etc.

1/5/2016 10:48 AM
Edited Date/Time: 1/5/2016 10:52 AM

id go with the wifi v2, only reason im personally not getting one is because no brake mounts and tt isnt big enough also i wear a size 14 shoe, and im setup with 13.4 rear end and i dont hit my foot on rear pegs


1996 dyno slammer, 1997 mosh pro, 1998 gt vertigo, 2000 haro backtrail x3, 2004 free agent tigercat, 2005 volume dinosaur, 2005 s&m black bike, 2013 stolen saint 24", 2015 flybikes proton

1/5/2016 8:56 PM

hyper c2. purely because mike laird makes them so theyre gonna be tuff as fuck