2010 Specialized Stumpjumper FSR and Enduro bikes

BlackSpur

sheepsteeth wrote:

if it is the case that we can have more travel, less weight with outstanding eficiency then i take it back, its a good thing.

if only we could do something about the whole cost subject, everything would be rosie!!

If the pound ever recovers back to 2 dollars to one then we'll be well in! Those were the good days...

Anonymous

hmm, ill be suprised if manufacturers revert their prices as quickly as they raised them!!

BlackSpur

Haha, well it's going to be a while before we find out anyway. I'd be happy if they just stopped putting them up! Very glad I bought my bike last year.

toasty

sheepsteeth wrote:

Toasty wrote:

How do you figure that? The missus £1900 Stumpjumper is about 4.5lbs heavier than my £1900 Meta and it's got heavier wheels, cassette and finishing kit, both using 140mm forks, both trail bikes. Spesh do some amazingly light frames.

how much does the stumpy weigh and how heavy is the meta?

Stock, about 31lbs for the Meta 55 XT and 26.8lbs for the Stumpjumper Elite (this one was weighed). Admittedly one is small and one is extra large, I was still shocked how light they'd managed to get it, especially with 140mm Talas on the front! Even now, my Meta has Stans Flows on Pro II wheels, XT cassette, Thomson post, Nobby Nic + kevlar High Roller tyres (way lighter than stock), SDG Ti Saddle and it's still 30.0lbs without pedals!

People mention more travel without more strength, generally Specialized bikes have rock solid warranties though. The only issues usually come from them trying out new technology, forks/rear shocks etc. The frames normally seem rock solid, my old Enduro had long travel plates and 130mm forks on when it came with 100mm stock! Wouldn't like to push my Meta in the same way

I do sound like a bit of a fanboy, my only Specialized frame at the mo is an ebayed, 6 year old Stumpjumper HT I commute on. I just generally think they're a very solid company.

Anonymous

that elite is pretty light, i thought your post said the stumpy was heavier.

toasty

Oh man, it did. It wasn't supposed to, hehehe.

Fixed (in a sec)!

Anonymous

i normally try to avoid being a spesh fanboi as it tends to devalue your argument on the odd ocasion you do recommend a favoured brand (as much as i like spesh bikes, its rare i often bang on about em).

but in a purely looks based (was gonna write aesthetic but i cant spell it) view, those new bikes are ace looking (even if there is too much travel).

the bike radar review of the 2010 bikes managed to fill a whole page without saying boring though, seems very strange!!

lawman

Toasty wrote:

lawman wrote:

the thing is only the mega expensive s-works and limited genius weigh 22lbs the rest are no lighter than anything else and we all get drawn in by the mega light weight when actually just about any other affordable trail bike is just as light as an ali version of a stumpy or genius. damn the marketing people!!!!

How do you figure that? The missus £1900 Stumpjumper is about 4.5lbs lighter than my £1900 Meta and it's got heavier wheels, cassette and finishing kit, both using 140mm forks, both trail bikes. Spesh do some amazingly light frames.

You're just attempting to be non-conformist.. by conforming to what the magazines say is cool this season.

not at all. f*** what the mags say. thats just what i think.

there are exceptions of course, metas are beefy frames and weigh about 7lbs, but look at the test in mbr and you'll see that the carbon stumpy is not the lightest bike. a genius 40 weighs about 27-28lbs which is alot more than the 22lb limited. this is what i mean. you imagine there to be a slight difference like a pound or two but 5-6lb difference is confusing. its almost like spesh and scott are aiming a single range at different people.
some people want a light long travel bike, and others just want a solid ride, but to get one or the other you have to spend mega bucks or save abit of cash

Anonymous

you'd have to be off your tits to think that just because the flagship model is super light that the alu lower spec versions are going to be close in comparison with weight.

the limiteds and sworks versions of bikes absolutely are directed at different folk: rich ones!

lawman

yer but by as much as 5-6lbs????? thats alot of weight

for example my dads rocky mountain element with some pretty heavy kit is 27lbs, my uncles carbon genius is 24lbs and cost over a grand more. i think 3-4 diffence between top and base model would be acceptable but at 5-6lbs your havin a laugh

BlackSpur

lawman
The Genius 40 is an alu frame - its never going to be comparable to the carbon ones. Its still light for what it is, especially consodering the heavy lump of Scott shock!

BlackSpur

lawman wrote:

yer but by as much as 5-6lbs????? thats alot of weight

for example my dads rocky mountain element with some pretty heavy kit is 27lbs, my uncles carbon genius is 24lbs and cost over a grand more. i think 3-4 diffence between top and base model would be acceptable but at 5-6lbs your havin a laugh

The Element is a 100mm race frame! Can't compare it to a 150mm travel Genius!

Anonymous

lawman wrote:

yer but by as much as 5-6lbs????? thats alot of weight

for example my dads rocky mountain element with some pretty heavy kit is 27lbs, my uncles carbon genius is 24lbs and cost over a grand more. i think 3-4 diffence between top and base model would be acceptable but at 5-6lbs your havin a laugh

its no secret that the lower models are heavier, thats what makes the top versions so much more expensive.

i cant help thinking that the flagship bikes are built to show off building and speccing skills (a la bugatti veyron for vw) and not ever designed to be ridden by the masses.

toasty

there are exceptions of course, metas are beefy frames and weigh about 7lbs, but look at the test in mbr and you'll see that the carbon stumpy is not the lightest bike. a genius 40 weighs about 27-28lbs which is alot more than the 22lb limited.

Indeed, even the standard frames are decent weights though once stripped down. They spec them sensibly as well, decent own brand finishing kit etc.

I'm not too sure what your point is on the Genius, of course an £8000 bike is lighter than a £2500 bike, I'm not stating the price has no bearing on weight. To be honest though you're going by random claimed weights anyway, the only one I can say for sure is the Meta frame is 8lbs on the scales, going by every VIP model I've seen weighed on the Owners Club forum, Commencal claimed weights don't include shock.

Purely going by claimed weight:

Genius 50 - 28.4lbs
Genius 40 - 28.2lbs
Genius 30 - 27.3lbs
Genius 20 - 26lbs
Genius 10 - 24.7lbs
Genius Ltd - 22.9lbs

Looks like a pretty smooth line to me. Shocking news just in, more money = lighter bike. Your main issue seems to be there is such a big difference between top and bottom, I'm not too sure why you've taken offence to this quite so much, it's generally the way with all brands.

As for Stumpys and Meta being drastically different, both are trail bikes, neither should be warrantied for freeride or DH, both run 140mm forks, both can do the odd trail jump and drop. The Meta feels burlier due to being quite a bit slacker, I wouldn't say it was stronger though, don't get me wrong, I love the thing. I'm not going to break it with 160mm forks and huge drops to flat like a lot seem to be doing though.

lawman

not taken offence lol it just seemsthat such a wide spread of weights seems silly to me.

to me it seems like a genius could be used for all mountain but a ltd is an xc/ trail bike. the intended nature of the bike is the same but the weight suggest they could be used at different ends of the spectrum is my point

Naveed

Check out the new enduros for 2010 - http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/t ... os-oh-dear

toasty

I think they do cheat a bit to get that final pound or so out. 400g tyres on flexy wheels are no fun to ride

The Genius isn't too guilty of that now I check the spec though, those DT carbon rims are obscenely expensive! Falling off could be pricey on that thing! XX should bring new levels of light bikes without cheating quite so much with any luck, it looks quite a bit lighter than XTR.

nathan ferguson

can you explain this to me please? im new to cycling relatively and i want to know thanks

lawman

bit late for that Naveed :P

SDK2007

Lawman I'm not sure where your argument is going.
Like Toasty said - You spend more money and get a lighter bike, simple.

The difference between a high end carbon frame (S-Works) and an aluminium frame (standard FSR M5) is only around 300-400g anyway, the rest is higher spec, lighter parts.
A standard BMW 318 is around £40k cheaper than a BMW M3, people don't assume the 318 is just as quick

lawman wrote:

to me it seems like a genius could be used for all mountain but a ltd is an xc/ trail bike. the intended nature of the bike is the same but the weight suggest they could be used at different ends of the spectrum is my point

None of the Genius range are All Mountain bikes.

REMF

any news on the 2020 Pitch an XC bikes?

blakspark

i spoke to the specialized concept store they think its highly unlikely that there will be a 2010 pitch!!!

REMF

seems strange given how popular the pitch is.........

Chaz.Harding

REMF - it's probably because they've increased the travel in the Stumpy to 140mm (same as the Pitch), so is no room for the model. Probably beefed it up a little too.

Then you'd have 100mm Epic, 120mm FSR-XC, 140mm Stumpy and 150mm (maybe even 160mm) Enduro.

Plus the SX Trail, Big-Hit's and Demo's, but yeah, you get my point.

The increase in travel and weight makes sense. +20mm every step. Looks like they have all the bases covered to me!

SDK2007

The Pitch remains in the 2010 line-up; apart from the colours it's unchanged from the previous 2 years.

toasty

bigchazrocks wrote:

REMF - it's probably because they've increased the travel in the Stumpy to 140mm (same as the Pitch), so is no room for the model. Probably beefed it up a little too.

The Stumpy is a price leap above the Pitch, no competition at all. Specialized market their bikes well, they have a low price and high price version of both trail type bikes:

Pitch -> Enduro
FSR XC -> Stumpjumper

Nothing to do with travel, the target demographic hasn't changed on the Stumpy. Much like ye olde downhill bikes used to have less travel than modern trail bikes. My 2001 Enduro used to have 100mm travel on the front, this certainly didn't make it comparable to an Epic

I hope they've not beefed it up personally! Giant did similar last year with their frames, the new X models are longer travel yet lighter.

Kiwi Kranker

lawman wrote:

thats my point.

anyone who wants a 20lb bike is either a) an xc racer/ rider or b) a knob who just wants to show off and would be no faster on it than a "normal" trail bike

So anyone who has done well or appreciates something very well engineered and can afford one must be a knob?

Tall poppy syndrome here we come.

timmys

All the pictures I've seen of the 2010 Stumpjumper seem to be of the carbon S-works, are there any pictures of the aluminium framed versions that I've missed?

EDIT: I spel gud

lawman

Kiwi Kranker wrote:

lawman wrote:

thats my point.

anyone who wants a 20lb bike is either a) an xc racer/ rider or b) a knob who just wants to show off and would be no faster on it than a "normal" trail bike

So anyone who has done well or appreciates something very well engineered and can afford one must be a knob?

Tall poppy syndrome here we come.

ok so maybe i was atyad harsh on the knob front. i appreciate that these 22lb 5-6" bikes are engineering genius but for the real world they are often over kill and over priced.

gcwebbyuk

bluechair84 wrote:

Isn't this a dumbing down of mountain biking? You started on 100mm and learnt to ride hard and fast. Then they said, take 120mm because it will take the sting out of the bigger hits so you can ride a bit sloppier. Then they say, take a 140mm bike because it's more comfortable... But hang on, you were riding the same stuff on 100mm all those years ago but now you can just blow through the trail with no prowess - you don't need the strength, you still use it all the available travel, you just become lazy over where you ride.

I agree - and before all this we were doing it fully rigid!

I have never ridden a FS bike, only ever ridden HT - would consider a FS now due to neck injury and damage limitation - but would only go for something with a low amount of travel <120mm - so if the new FSR XC gets the M5 frame as has been suggested, it might be a good buy in for me...

...swap all the good bits from my stumpy HT over and vice versa, end up with a nice FS bike and an OK HT for road or sustans/towpath rides 8)