# Bontrager Ti Lite ~ Info



## idoru (Jan 14, 2004)

Hi,
Looking at buying a Ti Lite and need a bit more info, I have Bonty catalogues from previous years so have all measurements etc, would just like to know the background to where they were built and also if the tubing is butted or straight guage and from where it was sourced, what mix ect.
Anybody else got one or had any good/bad experiences?


----------



## TruckeeLocal (Mar 5, 2002)

*Me, me, me !*



idoru said:


> Hi,
> Looking at buying a Ti Lite and need a bit more info, I have Bonty catalogues from previous years so have all measurements etc, would just like to know the background to where they were built and also if the tubing is butted or straight guage and from where it was sourced, what mix ect.
> Anybody else got one or had any good/bad experiences?


I've got one. A '96. No idea where it was built (not Santa Cruz though). No idea what type of tubes it's got, probably straight guage though.
It's a solid machine which wasn't really built "lite" or even light. Mine is around 26 pounds. But it can run 2.4" WTB moto-raptor tires. It allows for the use of U-brakes - yippee  The graphics come off pretty easily but they're boring anyway and I don't care if anyone knows, or cares, that I'm on a Bonty. I use it for about half my off-road adventures, especially on fire-road climbs and cruising single-track (the other half the time I use an Ellsworth Id). Bad side is that it gets dirty easily especially with the Sierra moon dust that just sticks, and it's got a 1" steerer so replacement forks might be a problem. Other than that it's just a solid practical no-worries bomb-proof steed that will last a lifetime, or two, or three.


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

I've got one too and love it. 

It isn't the lightest ti bike around but it isn't whippy as many of the ti bikes from that era. It actually rides a little stiffer than the steel Bontragers. It isn't too apparent in the ride but I can run my crank arms really close into the stays and never get them to rub. I have to keep them out about twice as far on my race-lite. I notice that standing climbs on the steel ones get the chain to rub the cage more and such but the ti is stiff enough to keep this ata minimum. The ti's will run about a half-pound lighter than the same sized race-lite. 

The best I've heard is that they were made by Sandvik in Washington state. Just kinda hearsay ish. I never saw it officially listed. 

Like Trukee says, forks will be an option. You might want to see what you can come up with before buying the frame. As of last year, Marzocchi was stilll making 1" forks so you may be able to come up with one. Yup ugly sticker, mine are long gone. There was a set on ebay last week and they went really low. I think most people dislike them. 

Mines perpetually covered in crud. I keep the drive train clean and stopped caring what the frame looks like. I've got the weight down a bit lower than Trukee's but you can still go lighter. Figure on a 3.3lb(advertised) frame for a med and a littel more for a large. The fork options may also trap you into some extra weight. I have a pig of an older Marzocchi. 

Hope this helps, if you find the time, scan and post those catalogs.


----------



## cursivearmy (Jan 26, 2004)

[QUOTE=TruckeeLocal It allows for the use of U-brakes - yippee  


you mean Vbrakes right? not U-brakes. i know that some bmxers call vbrakes / ubrakes. 

i've never seen a Bontrager with Rollercam bosses.

over and out
nate


----------



## Rumpfy (Dec 21, 2003)

idoru said:


> Hi,
> Looking at buying a Ti Lite and need a bit more info, I have Bonty catalogues from previous years so have all measurements etc, would just like to know the background to where they were built and also if the tubing is butted or straight guage and from where it was sourced, what mix ect.
> Anybody else got one or had any good/bad experiences?


My buddy has one. I agree in that I think it feels much stiffer than their steel counterparts.
Very quick handling, borderline twitchy.
Cramped cockpit, IMO.
But, if you're going to go titanium, it's the coolest thing next to a Fat Chance Ti!


----------



## idoru (Jan 14, 2004)

Luckily the 1" fork shouldn't be too much of a problem, I am based in the UK and have a good relationship with a local bike and fork manufacturer, Pace, they make some beautiful forks and can easily change the steerer to 1" so shouldn't be a problem there.
Am I right in thinking the frames where designed with 63mm travel forks in mind, is anybody running anything longer than 63mm?
Also as regards catalogues all you retro geeks should checkout this German website, everything you could want all in .pdf format and ready to download ~ hope you like it :~)
http://www.mtb-kataloge.de/


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

idoru said:


> Am I right in thinking the frames where designed with 63mm travel forks in mind, is anybody running anything longer than 63mm?


The bikes are designed around a 63mm fork. I'm running a 2001 Marzocchi reduced to 70mm of travel. The 63mm Judys which came on my bike, has about the same axle to crown height as the Marzocchi that I run. I"m sure that it would handle fine at 80mm.


----------



## rip. (Jan 31, 2004)

I remember reading a review in Mountain Bike ( I think) when the ti lite came out. I recall that the tubes were straight gauge soured from China to keep the costs resonable. If you decide NOT to by the ti lite, send me the contact info of the guy selling the frame...I'll gladly buy it  

clem


----------



## TruckeeLocal (Mar 5, 2002)

*U brakes*



cursivearmy said:


> TruckeeLocal It allows for the use of U-brakes - yippee :eek:
> you mean Vbrakes right? not U-brakes. i know that some bmxers call vbrakes / ubrakes.
> i've never seen a Bontrager with Rollercam bosses.
> over and out
> ...


----------



## JahWind (Jan 20, 2004)

*Ti Bonty*

I bought one in '98 and it is bomb proof. Thanks to Marzocchi the 1" steerer is not an issue. They are definately built to last. I've had my set up SS, but it's now back to geared.

TruckeeLocal, the mounts that you refer to on the chainstay are for the Anti Suck Chain device.

There is infromation on the frame specs here.

Good Luck,
JahWind


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

They were definately designed around the earlier 63mm forks but handle up to an 80mm well. I think they do a little better with the longer travel forks. It brings the front up, slackens the angles all around. Since the seat tube will be leaned back a little more and you can run a long flatish stem, the cockpit can stand to gain as little length without the pitfall of running just a longer stem which will only put weight foreward. 

The slackening of the headtube angle will also ease the steering. They still turn quickly though. I'm of the opinion that the old NORBA hardtails put weight too far foreward for regular riding. Bontragers benefit from a longer fork. 

If all sales on that one fall through, I want another to go ss with. I would love to have an EBB converted one. 

Take it easy all


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

TruckeeLocal said:


> Oh hell. I don't know what I'm talking about. My frame allows for the use of brakes mounted under the chain stays where they can pick up mud and stop working within 5 metres - aren't those U-brakes ?


Nope. Those mounts are for the anti-chain suck device. You're supposed to have a metal plate bolted onto the bottom the frame, and secured by those two bolts.

U-brakes require mounts on both stays.


----------



## TruckeeLocal (Mar 5, 2002)

*Shows my ignorance*



laffeaux said:


> Nope. Those mounts are for the anti-chain suck device. You're supposed to have a metal plate bolted onto the bottom the frame, and secured by those two bolts.
> 
> U-brakes require mounts on both stays.


Thanks, it always bugged me that KB would want to install U-Brakes. Now why would he want to install chain suck devices ? Should I install one ? I don't really experience chain suck so ...

Screw it. I'll just ride it 'til one of us quits, and it's extremely unlikely to be the bike.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

TruckeeLocal said:


> Thanks, it always bugged me that KB would want to install U-Brakes. Now why would he want to install chain suck devices ? Should I install one ? I don't really experience chain suck so ...
> 
> Screw it. I'll just ride it 'til one of us quits, and it's extremely unlikely to be the bike.


If you have no issues with chain suck don't worry about it. The device prevents the chain from getting past the chain rings and really jammed far into the frame. It's a nice to have, but many other bikes don't have them and work fine.

The worst case of chain suck that I had was on my Yeti. I had the choice of breaking the chain or removing the cranks to get the chain unstuck. I was glad that I had self-extracting cranks bolts. Note that there's no device on the Yeti, and this has happened once - and it's never happened on any other bike.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

*the chinese bonty*

i have the mountain bike issue with the chinese bonty. the drop outs are aluminum, bonded to the stays. very different form all bonty ti's i've seen being sold, which are robably sandvik built. does anybody know if those cinese frames were ever sold to public? i could scan the feature and post but... only if it's necessary.


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

i have the mountain bike issue with the chinese bonty. the drop outs are aluminum, bonded to the stays. very different form all bonty ti's i've seen being sold, which are robably sandvik built. does anybody know if those cinese frames were ever sold to public? i could scan the feature and post but... only if it's necessary. 

weird, I never heard of or came accross one like this. When was the article published? I would guess that it would likely be before the Trek buyout. Bontrager played around with a few things that got dropped or changed when Trek bought them. Keith said in an article that he had wanted to do a ti bike for some time and was only able to when Trek took over. It was a combination of being free from running the more mundane aspects of the company allowing him more time to go with projects that had been back-burnered and the additional purchasing power of trek behind him.

I never saw a Chinese one in any of the shops around Santa Cruz. Between the Spokesman and Family Cycling Center, everything and anything Bontrager could be found.


----------



## Kary (Feb 15, 2004)

*TiLite*

I have one also. It was built by Titanium Sports Technologies in Washington State. It is a great singletrack and climbing bike. I find it nervous on downhills. It is the bike I use for just about everything. I have tried many full suspension bikes and end up back on the Bontrager every time.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

*here she is...*

here is the mag page


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

Thanks colker. 

That looks cool. Did you see when the issue was published? 
Now the oddball questions of the day, with what looks like clamped on brake bosses in the rear, do you thik it could have gone 29er? Without the bridge between the chainstays it should be able to sport 700c cross wheels anyways.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Boy named SSue said:


> Thanks colker.
> 
> That looks cool. Did you see when the issue was published?
> Now the oddball questions of the day, with what looks like clamped on brake bosses in the rear, do you thik it could have gone 29er? Without the bridge between the chainstays it should be able to sport 700c cross wheels anyways.


the issue is february 95...
it weighted 3.25 lbs for the 17in frame (less than the sandviks huh?). the review mentions an ultra smooth frame while the sandvik's are notoriously stiffer than the race lites.
it seems to me those bosses are glued on the stays. also, slapping bigger wheels, you are riasing the bb and the bike's center of gravity. bontys front centers are tight, w/ the shorter rake fork so toe overlap would be an issue as well. 
i would like to ride a 29er designed by KB. now that would be interesting...


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

the issue is february 95...
it weighted 3.25 lbs for the 17in frame (less than the sandviks huh?). the review mentions an ultra smooth frame while the sandvik's are notoriously stiffer than the race lites.
it seems to me those bosses are glued on the stays. also, slapping bigger wheels, you are riasing the bb and the bike's center of gravity. bontys front centers are tight, w/ the shorter rake fork so toe overlap would be an issue as well. 
i would like to ride a 29er designed by KB. now that would be interesting...

Yeah, they probably are glued. There were a few of the early fillet-brazed frames that Keith made that sported bosses for 26" and 700c. There is a professor at UCSC with one like this that has a curved bladed Bontrager composite fork.

Feb '95 is before the buyout I think.

3.25lb beats the final production ti-lite by 0.05lb for the 17". Not bad. I'll take American made over lighter although some extra compliance might be nice. I definately like that they are stiffer than the steel ones but maybe the unexplored middle ground would be better. When asked what his favorite bike by Bontrager was, Keith said he liked the prototype ti-lite (I don't think it was this Chinese one but the test of the US made ones) that wasn't as stiff as the production ti-lite. I think that is the frame he still rides.


----------



## aosty (Jan 7, 2004)

laffeaux said:


> Nope. Those mounts are for the anti-chain suck device. You're supposed to have a metal plate bolted onto the bottom the frame, and secured by those two bolts.
> 
> U-brakes require mounts on both stays.


Here's a handy photo...


----------



## kokopelli (Feb 24, 2004)

Here's a scan of the 96 german bontrager cat. If someone is interested, I can email a more 'eyefriendly' version.

In my opinion, the Ti isn't a 'real' Bontrager, as it wasn't produced in SC. It's a nice frame, though.

Koko


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

kokopelli said:


> Here's a scan of the 96 german bontrager cat. If someone is interested, I can email a more 'eyefriendly' version.
> 
> In my opinion, the Ti isn't a 'real' Bontrager, as it wasn't produced in SC. It's a nice frame, though.
> 
> Koko


I have copies of the US versions of the '96 and '97 catalogs (in English) as well if anyone needs them. There's not a lot of info on the frames other than geometry - who makes them and where is pretty ambiguous. It says that Privateers are made at the "our production facility in the midwest," instead of saying that they are built in Waterloo by Trek.


----------



## rye (Feb 9, 2004)

A Bontrager is a Bontrager regardless of where it was welded; you’re getting KB's awesome frame design... It's not like KB was welding them himself in the later years in Santa Cruz anyway, I'm sure he had guys doing that for him. 

I've always been fascinated by the allure of the Santa Cruz built frame, what makes it so special other then the fact it was welded in Santa Cruz, has a 26.8 seat tube and bottom bracket reinforcement?

Personally I like the later Privateers more then the Santa Cruz or early Privateers models because of the 1 1/8” they switched to so I can run a modern fork and they have the specially molded rear drops KB couldn't get from True Temper until the Trek switch.

I’ve heard Rock Lobster will do a retro fit of a 1 1/8” on the old frames but then is it a Bontrager or a RockTrager? Hehe bad joke.


----------



## kokopelli (Feb 24, 2004)

uhhhh.....difficult topic

Bontrager wasn't Bontrager anymore when it was sold to Trek. That's MY opinion. Of course, KB didn't weld all the frames by himself. That's what he says: "
I did weld quite a bit. Eventually I stopped though, around 1994. I can still weld.

You can tell if I welded it because the welding is not that pretty (but it is strong!). The guys we got to weld after me were much better.

KB" Sympathic guy, isn't he?

And yes, I prefer a 1" frame because that's the original idea of Keith building his frames...btw it looks better and weights less. Why should I install a 1 1/8" fork, when thwe frame is designed for forks with a maximal travel of 60 mm?Just get a older Mag or a 'newer' Judy and you can get as happy as you want to. Those forks won Worldcups, so they should be o.k. for me

Koko


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

rye said:


> I've always been fascinated by the allure of the Santa Cruz built frame, what makes it so special other then the fact it was welded in Santa Cruz, has a 26.8 seat tube and bottom bracket reinforcement?


The allure of the Santa Cruz built bikes is that they have a special "mojo" to them. In a lot of people's mind, there's more to a bike than just the ride quality - who built it, where it was built, and how it was constructed, are just as important as how it rides. A Privateers might ride just as well as the Race (I've never compared them), but the bike rider knows that he/she is not riding a bike built in Santa Cruz. Does it make the bike ride differently? No. Does the rider care? Some do.

The best example of this phenomena are for road bikers. There are some riders that will only ride a bike made by brazing steel with lugs. Does it ride better? Probably not. However, the rider has a bike that is different, and has some artistic flair to it. Some riders think that this is worth a lot of money, and others think it has no value. Spend time reading on http://www.rivendellbicycles.com and you'll see the extremist view of why a bike is as much art as it is a bike. Some people will pay more because they feel the artist matters.

I have a Santa Cruz made Race Lite welded by someone that was not KB after Trek bought the company. Does that have more Mojo than a bike built in Waterloo? Does it have less Mojo than a bike built before the Trek buy-out, but welded by the same guy in the same place? Who knows.


----------



## kokopelli (Feb 24, 2004)

Couldn't have said it better (maybe due to my lack of english).

For me it's important to know when,where, by whom....and WHY a frame was built.

btw: Race and Race Lites were never built in Wisconsin. All frames that were sold after Trek bought Bontrager were frames that had been built in SC and had not been sold yet before trek overtook(does this word exist?) the company.

Koko


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

I've always been fascinated by the allure of the Santa Cruz built frame, what makes it so special other then the fact it was welded in Santa Cruz, has a 26.8 seat tube and bottom bracket reinforcement?

In designing a frame, consideration must be given to the skill of the welder. The Santa Cruz Bontragers are known for the smooth ride, privateers not so. This is because the tubes on the privateers were speced anticipating less skilled welders because the thinner tubes on the Santa Cruz bikes would have been a liablility. Welding thin tubes is problematic if they get over heated as would be likely with some of the privateers. If you ever saw the dumpster at the Santa Cruz facillity, there were always a couple of scapped partial frames that had nothing wrong with them to the naked eye.

Obviosly most of the people on this or the rest of the vintage forum put value on who built a bike. You haven't heard any of us say 'That '93 KHS middle of the line bike was where it was at for what you payed'. There is a difference in quality going from mass produced to boutique and people will disagree whether you get what you pay for.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

Boy named SSue said:


> This is because the tubes on the privateers were speced anticipating less skilled welders because the thinner tubes on the Santa Cruz bikes would have been a liablility. Welding thin tubes is problematic if they get over heated as would be likely with some of the privateers.


The problem with this argument is that Privateers used a 27.0 seatpost and had the same outter diameter. That means that the seat tube on a Privateer is actually thinner than on a Santa Cruz built frame, correct?


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

kokopelli said:


> Race and Race Lites were never built in Wisconsin. All frames that were sold after Trek bought Bontrager were frames that had been built in SC and had not been sold yet before trek overtook(does this word exist?) the company.


Actually that's half right. Race and Race Lites were never built in Wisconsin. However, production of these frames continued in Santa Cruz through 1997 (about two years after the buy-out).

I e-mailed a guy that worked at Bontrager building frames from '94 to '97, and according to him the difference was that the tubes on the post-Trek bikes were laser mittered in Waterloo, and pre-Trek they were done in-house without the benefit of the laser. He said that doing this saved build time, but netted the same quality. He also said that the modifed rear stays and removal of the front derailler pulley were done prior to Trek.


----------



## TruckeeLocal (Mar 5, 2002)

*No, the problem with this thread is ...*



laffeaux said:


> The problem with this argument is that Privateers used a 27.0 seatpost and had the same outter diameter. That means that the seat tube on a Privateer is actually thinner than on a Santa Cruz built frame, correct?


The problem here is that we have a thread on Ti-Lites and not the Waterloo/Santa Cruz steel frames. I would be extremely uncomfortable with some guy from Santa Cruz trying to weld a Ti frame. If you've ever been to Santa Cruz you'd know that the lack of oxygen would affect the welder rather rapidly, unlike the copious amounts of alcohol the folks there seem to consume. I've never been to Waterloo so I can't comment on their lifestyle choices 

Having said that I, too, would go for a Santa Cruz built frame given the choice. Hell I know someone with one down the road that I could get cheap and set up as a fixie.


----------



## Boy named SSue (Jan 7, 2004)

The problem with this argument is that Privateers used a 27.0 seatpost and had the same outter diameter. That means that the seat tube on a Privateer is actually thinner than on a Santa Cruz built frame, correct?

compare the overall frame weights for a better idea of what's going on. I have no idea what a privateer weighs before you ask. It's more than a race by enough to discount the larger headtube as the main contributor to the added material.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

TruckeeLocal said:


> The problem here is that we have a thread on Ti-Lites and not the Waterloo/Santa Cruz steel frames.


Ummm... excellent point. I guess we're a bit off topic. Opps...

By the way I'd love to have a Ti Lite regardless of where they were made. The problem is no one wants to sell me one for what I'm willing to pay.


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

idoru said:


> Anybody else got one or had any good/bad experiences?


I recently picked up a Ti Lite frame on eBay. I considered buying one in '98 when I bought my Race Lite, but decided to go with the steel version (which was $500 less at the time - a big selling point). I built it up with parts that I had striped from another bike that I'd sold a few weeks back. My first ride on it was two night ago.

My impressions after the first ride:

- I'm a horrible mechanic. I need to stop mixing and matching 8 and 9 speed casettes to build a casette that half works. The shifting was not so good, but I fixed it last night so tonight's ride should be better.

- The ride is very similar to the Race Lite. I love my Race Lite and have put many miles on it over the past 6 years. The only real difference that I could feel was in the fork.

- I built the Ti Lite with a 2000 SID that I picked up at a swap meet. There's a 2002 Marzocchi on my Race Lite. The SID is noticeably flexier in turns, but is also noticably lighter. It's easier to lift the front end while riding with the SID even with the bars on the Ti Lite being ever so slightly lower than on the Race Lite. The SID is more than a pound lighter - I like the light feel and now want a 3 pound fork with zero flex (anyone have one that's not a rigid?).

- Lastly, I was surprised that the Ti bike was not as light as I'd expected. The catalogs claim that it's a 1/2 pound lighter than the Race Light - I'd say it's a little less than that. I compared the frame weights as close as I could. I have a bare Race Lite frame with no paint on it that I used for comparision. The Ti Lite had a headset installed and I didn't want to remove the cups so I estimated it at about 80g (no top cap, and neither race included). Also the TI Lite has rear brake bosses and the Race Lite does not, which is probably a minimal difference but some. Anyway... the Ti Lite was about 50g lighter (i.e. 2 oz.). Once you add paint to the Race Lite (maybe a 100g?) we're talking 6-7 oz. difference. It made me realize that the steel frames are pretty darn light.

Built up the Ti Lite with parts that I had (random combo of XTR, XT, LX, and DX) the bike was under 25 pounds based on a non-scientific measurement using bathroom scales. It's a little lighter than my Race Lite (thanks almost entirely to the SID).


----------



## Crell (Apr 7, 2004)

idoru said:


> Hi,
> Looking at buying a Ti Lite and need a bit more info, I have Bonty catalogues from previous years so have all measurements etc, would just like to know the background to where they were built and also if the tubing is butted or straight guage and from where it was sourced, what mix ect.
> Anybody else got one or had any good/bad experiences?


If you decide not to buy it please pass on the details - I'm in the UK. 
I rode the prototype bike, and found it very stiff, not too much compliance. In many ways I prefer the steel bikes.....but still want a ti-lite.

I've got RC 36s on mine and they work well.


----------

