Riding style HT+FS

bails87

Well my bike is under 25lb. Apparently the wheels on it are ~1700g. FS I agree with you though, it risks being too fragile, but then you've got the bouncy back end to soak up bumps, rather than all the force going through the wheels, so swings and roundabouts.

Thewaylander

You say that. but if you make up a muck up witht eh speed you had the wheel is just as dead if not more so lol.

It's swings and round abouts. if i was riding FTD as my regular i would tend ot agree with you light fast is best, my FS gave me nothing there. but here i wouldn't bother with a HT as my butt couldn't take it hehe(its old and saggy now see)

joshtp

im not saying i wouldnt have a FS, even if i could, but it would have to be my second, or maybe third bike, and then it would be a 100mm, tough as old boots, all day pedal-able 4X bike. for playing about, hitin' the local DH, and playing in the woods. if money was no object a full on DH bike would be good, as would a FS Am bike like a ransom, and if i had more than 10 bikes, one would be a 140mm FS, or a XC race fs bike like a scalpel.

but only 1 bike, well a long travel trail HT, like i have now, would be the one. second would be a 100mm play bike, 3rd maybe a FS, or maybe a Super long travel huck/DH monster HT...

lets just say i would have a FS, but it wouldnt be my first choice, and it would be the bike at the back of the shed, getting pulled out for races, alps trips, and the occasional all day epic, or iff apropriate, a DH ride on a race level track, maybe once a month or two.

Northwind

Thewaylander wrote:

I don't know to hit 25 you gotta have some pretty light wheels and so on.. still scares me. on my old 26.5pound cannondale f700 i destroyed the wheels

Pretty sure my Soul would hit 25lbs without the gravity dropper... Might need some other work, not entirely sure but nothing too major i think. It's not delicate... And the 1500-and-a-bit gram wheels are probably stronger than a lot of 2 kilo wheels.

Thewaylander

If your sure about that north hand it over lets have a try hehe

Northwind

Nah it's not full-on DH or jump bike tough of course but then it doesn't need to be, it's not a DH or a jump bike.

ilovedirt

Northwind wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

I don't know to hit 25 you gotta have some pretty light wheels and so on.. still scares me. on my old 26.5pound cannondale f700 i destroyed the wheels

Pretty sure my Soul would hit 25lbs without the gravity dropper... Might need some other work, not entirely sure but nothing too major i think. It's not delicate... And the 1500-and-a-bit gram wheels are probably stronger than a lot of 2 kilo wheels.

yeah, i reckon if i swapped my pikes for some revs and got a lighter rear wheel, my scott could hit 25-26lbs

Anonymous

i reckon id have to spend some mental moneys to get my stumpjumper to under 27lbs, anywhere near 25 would be nigh on impossible if i wanted a bike that could be ridden.

that said i dont know anything about properly lightweight kit apart from the fact that it is pricey (and often it is ugly before anyone recommends some ugly finishing kit to replace my thompson kit).

bails87

sheepsteeth wrote:

i reckon id have to spend some mental moneys to get my stumpjumper to under 27lbs, anywhere near 25 would be nigh on impossible if i wanted a bike that could be ridden.

that said i dont know anything about properly lightweight kit apart from the fact that it is pricey (and often it is ugly before anyone recommends some ugly finishing kit to replace my thompson kit).

But a 25lb HT would be do-able for a grand.

Anonymous

bails87 wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

i reckon id have to spend some mental moneys to get my stumpjumper to under 27lbs, anywhere near 25 would be nigh on impossible if i wanted a bike that could be ridden.

that said i dont know anything about properly lightweight kit apart from the fact that it is pricey (and often it is ugly before anyone recommends some ugly finishing kit to replace my thompson kit).

But a 25lb HT would be do-able for a grand.

true, but it could weigh 15lbs and cost 7 quid, i still wouldnt want to ride it off road.

bails87

sheepsteeth wrote:

bails87 wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

i reckon id have to spend some mental moneys to get my stumpjumper to under 27lbs, anywhere near 25 would be nigh on impossible if i wanted a bike that could be ridden.

that said i dont know anything about properly lightweight kit apart from the fact that it is pricey (and often it is ugly before anyone recommends some ugly finishing kit to replace my thompson kit).

But a 25lb HT would be do-able for a grand.

true, but it could weigh 15lbs and cost 7 quid, i still wouldnt want to ride it off road.

It's the old Cheap/Light/Strong triangle. £1000 isn't cheap for a HT, so it can be light AND strong. Again, that's without any fancy kit.

boneyjoe

You wouldn't take a knife to a gunfight now would you...

peter413

sheepsteeth wrote:

i reckon id have to spend some mental moneys to get my stumpjumper to under 27lbs, anywhere near 25 would be nigh on impossible if i wanted a bike that could be ridden.

that said i dont know anything about properly lightweight kit apart from the fact that it is pricey (and often it is ugly before anyone recommends some ugly finishing kit to replace my thompson kit).

My stumpy weighs just under 28lbs with DH bars and stem and brakes etc.

I could probably get it down to about 25lbs if I put all XC kit on it but I'm a big guy so like big kit

BTW its a 2004 FSR so it doesn't have the lightest frame well heavier than M5 anyway

bails87

boneyjoe wrote:

You wouldn't take a knife to a gunfight now would you...

Eh? :?

I Don\'t Get It

Doesn't anybody just ride for pleasure anymore? The sheer satisfaction of squishing lazily over steep rocky drops, picking the line to the inch, while feeling all that lovely suspension wafting you into a state of bliss, and ballancing like a Ballerina. (Nearly said Fairy.)

Why, it's almost as much fun as my Citroen 2 C.V. used to feel. (Especially when up on two wheels around the corners!)

Thewaylander

i'm never convinced by super light kit.. for instance i would never touch x-0 gear in my veiw incredible expensive and delicate

bails87

Thewaylander wrote:

i'm never convinced by super light kit.. for instance i would never touch x-0 gear in my veiw incredible expensive and delicate

Came as standard on my bike

Thewaylander

Indeed, but i have trashed mech's say for instance in a few rides. all it takes is one rock and bang! its ruined. especially exposed items.

With an x-9 this upset me and i considered going x-7 as its a bit tougher than the 9..

popstar

The conclusion from many replies would lie around being lucky to have both. I only wonder, what forks could my rockhopper take? And about FS bikes ... seems that 120mm at both ends would be more than enough for UK, even taking into account how sexy Lapp's are 140+ mm is on overkill size?
However in my opinion as it stands now, my rockhopper is very at the limit of 80mm in trail centers (CYB) that's why was massaging myself towards FS, and Trek fuel EX + Ghost AMR especially look the real deal (actually it looks like it's gonna be posher than Cube or be the next Lapierre according to MBR reviews) ! But I don't think I would like to lose mein rockhopper*.
Damn marketing people, think I should stop Reading magazines and drooling over pics of shiny bikes!

Northwind

popstar wrote:

The conclusion from many replies would lie around being lucky to have both. I only wonder, what forks could my rockhopper take? And about FS bikes ... seems that 120mm at both ends would be more than enough for UK, even taking into account how sexy Lapp's are 140+ mm is on overkill size?

See, this is complicated now. Partly because 6 inch forks are available that are as light as 5 inch forks were 2 years ago, so there's less reason not to use them. And I'd have totally agreed, but my full suss genuinely just rides better on any terrain at 6 inches than it does at 5. Not quite as nice climbing but otherwise spot on.

Now to be fair, you could make the same sort of handling with a slacked off 120mm bike, and it might be slightly better in some ways, and certainly it'd be less of a skills compensator... But it's not "too much", even for really basic XC it works well. I'm a wee bit conflicted about this, I really don't want it to be true!

supersonic

The longer the fork gets, the more dynamic the head angle change gets - plus sagged geo may be very slack to start. many don't like this.

Anonymous

i feel the same about my 6 inch bike, it is too much bike according to all the normal accepted opinons about bikes, but it rides brilliantly in all conditions. i treat it like a big xc bike and i think the reason i like it so much is the slack head angle.

id happily ride a 100mm bike if it was efficient and long enough for all day rides with a HA of about 66 degs.

popstar

There are many people who don't understand geometry. So does slacker angles make your riding position more reassuring while heading steep downhills, or there is more geo-magic people should understand?

Anonymous

popstar wrote:

There are many people who don't understand geometry. So does slacker angles make your riding position more reassuring while heading steep downhills, or there is more geo-magic people should understand?

thats why i like slack angles, and i cant really put my finger on why i like it in all other situations too. i just find the bike less twitchy.

supersonic

Slacker head angles result in more fork trail which has a stabilizing effect - the wheel will want to go in a straight line and self correct, which means that the handling will feel safer when rocks are trying to ping the wheel about. When going down a steep hill, angles automatically get steeper, so DH bikes often have very slack head angles to compensate.

But they can feel slower to turn on tight twisty stuff, and less weight on the front may make the wheel want to wash out more. Shorter stems and steeper seat angles can compensate.

In the end it is what works best for you. I like steepish head angles, and longish stems.

popstar

Nice piece of advice! Think I am gonna take mini harley davidson with huge fork to create slack head angle and visualize how it handles !

I tell ya -bikeradar- is some serious knowledge machine!

Northwind

supersonic wrote:

The longer the fork gets, the more dynamic the head angle change gets - plus sagged geo may be very slack to start. many don't like this.

On both my bikes I reckon I'd prefer less travel, but only if I can have the same sagged geometry. The Soul only gets a 130mm fork to tweak the geometry, not because I desperately want 130mm of travel. (I was trying to convince people at the weekend that instead of u-turn adjusting the fork travel, it should adjust the axle-to-crown but leave the travel the same. Nobody else thinks this is a good idea) But, still, I'm starting to think I might be wrong with this theory since the long travel isn't doing much of the stuff I thought I'd dislike, unless provoked.

ilovedirt

the travel doesn't bother me so much, a steeper head angle is definitely nicer for climbing, i tend to wind the compression damping on a bit on my pikes when climbing anyway so i only use maybe 70mm travel, makes life much easier. I do like a reasonably slack head angle though, it just feels more relaxed, especially coupled with the short stem.

supersonic

Northwind wrote:

supersonic wrote:

The longer the fork gets, the more dynamic the head angle change gets - plus sagged geo may be very slack to start. many don't like this.

On both my bikes I reckon I'd prefer less travel, but only if I can have the same sagged geometry. The Soul only gets a 130mm fork to tweak the geometry, not because I desperately want 130mm of travel. (I was trying to convince people at the weekend that instead of u-turn adjusting the fork travel, it should adjust the axle-to-crown but leave the travel the same. Nobody else thinks this is a good idea) But, still, I'm starting to think I might be wrong with this theory since the long travel isn't doing much of the stuff I thought I'd dislike, unless provoked.

With an air fork you would simply run the fork with the same sag in mm as the lower travel setting.

With coil, I can see your point, but again could do similar with a heavier coil.

RS's old VariTravel was an interesting design.

Northwind

supersonic wrote:

With an air fork you would simply run the fork with the same sag in mm as the lower travel setting.

Not sure what you mean by this? The idea is to get the u-turn effect (longer/shorter fork) but without longer/shorter travel, so you can change the geometry on the fly still but without changing the suspension action. Can't do that with air pressures, unless you have a wee pump...