Really worried about ditching the reverb

ljs1977

Hi

I think that I have decided to get a carbon XC bike as it suits 90% of my riding.

However, the reverb on my full suss is the main thing I am worried about parting with. i dont really want to put the reverb on the new bike as I want to keep it light and clean.

Has anyone done something simular? is it simply a case of re-learning old skills?

Cheers

Turbo124

They're not mutually exclusive though are they? How heavy is the reverb - about 450g I think? If you're buying a carbon XC bike it's going to be pretty light to start with - and you can probably offset most of the reverb weight with a few upgrades/mods (converting to tubeless probably a good place to start)...

warpcow

Really worried? Really? Try going for a ride without pushing the magic Reverb button. If you make it back in one piece then you're probably capable of riding without one. Otherwise, as above; I know a couple of XC racers who reckon they're worth the weight.

allthegearnoidea

i dont ride with one, never have and most probably wont uless i have a mad spell and go full suss!
i can comfortably sit my backside down oto the tyre wihout adjusting my seat at all, and hae plnat of room to move about on the bike, if you get it set up nicely for you then you shouldnt have any problems!!!

Chunkers1980

Radicle I know, but when you reach the top of a climb you can stop and lower your post, you know like they used to do in the olden days.

Northwind

It's hard to see past them once you're used to them tbh... TBH, I think it's worth the weight penalty- I've even used mine for XC racing, though admittedly I'm a terrible XC racer. But the options it gives you for overtaking especially in big chaotic events are great My carbon Next is only about 300g lighter, that's not a tiny amount but it's not massive either.

TBF, when I ride without a dropper I miss it more than when I ride without suspension.

anj132

Why not just install the reverb on the new XC bike and just do a few usual loops without dropping the seat and see how you get on? It's really going to depend on the type of riding you do as to whether you think it's worth dropping (see what I did there) it all together.

ljs1977

Sorry I may have over stated the REALLY bit, but the story behind this is that I am part chopping my full suss in for the HT, either with out without the Reverb. Obviously I will get more money if I give them the reverb, helping my budget - which is important. If I do sell it with the reverb I will be unlikely to afford another one for a while.

I am demoing some bikes tomorrow, just wanted some feed back of people who may have ditched and regretted or ditched and didnt miss it.

Cheers

lawman

Northwind wrote:

It's hard to see past them once you're used to them tbh... TBH, I think it's worth the weight penalty- I've even used mine for XC racing, though admittedly I'm a terrible XC racer. But the options it gives you for overtaking especially in big chaotic events are great My carbon Next is only about 300g lighter, that's not a tiny amount but it's not massive either.

TBF, when I ride without a dropper I miss it more than when I ride without suspension.

This!!

I wouldn't ride a bike without one now.

Yes you can drop your seatpost at the top of a climb, but if something makes its easier and the trails more fun then whats the issue? To lock your forks or shock out do you stop, get the shock pump and pump like a barstool til theres so much air in there it doesn't move? No you turn a dial and it does it for you... Same here.

supersonic

An engine makes it easier, I don't have one though ;-)

The Northern Monkey

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Radicle I know, but when you reach the top of a climb you can stop and lower your post, you know like they used to do in the olden days.

FTFY.

Stu Coops

Seeing as you want to keep it light it's a no brainer really to keep it off there as the weight of the Reverb is probably half the weight of the frame and 450grams is a lot of weight on a racy carbon job. Don't get me wrong i got one on my Zesty and love it but my Scott carbon HT is all about lightweight so if you are going down the road of considering putting it on your HT you might aswell buy an Aluminium frame.

warpcow

Stu Coops wrote:

Seeing as you want to keep it light it's a no brainer really to keep it off there as the weight of the Reverb is probably half the weight of the frame and 450grams is a lot of weight on a racy carbon job. Don't get me wrong i got one on my Zesty and love it but my Scott carbon HT is all about lightweight so if you are going down the road of considering putting it on your HT you might aswell buy an Aluminium frame.

Why on earth would you do that? The Reverb is a useful bit of kit, not just the equivalent of sticking lead weights upp your seatpost.

bennett_346

Stu Coops wrote:

Seeing as you want to keep it light it's a no brainer really to keep it off there as the weight of the Reverb is probably half the weight of the frame and 450grams is a lot of weight on a racy carbon job. Don't get me wrong i got one on my Zesty and love it but my Scott carbon HT is all about lightweight so if you are going down the road of considering putting it on your HT you might aswell buy an Aluminium frame.

Should he also ride with one wheel because 2 adds weight?

supersonic

I can see his point. I'd rather keep my 150g seatpost than add a Reverb because I simply don't need one.

However if he does use it a lot it it will benefit. See how you get on with it.

bennett_346

supersonic wrote:

I can see his point. I'd rather keep my 150g seatpost than add a Reverb because I simply don't need one.

That's not what he said.

supersonic

Not what who said?

Chunkers1980

Stu, he basically said if you're going to add weight with one to a light weight machine you may as well not bother with the light weight machine

supersonic

If your goal is light weight (and some people do sacrifice things for light weight), then the point has merit.

Is all about perspective, and how you use your bike, hence why I said try it and see if you feel it is worth it. The OP is certainly concerned about weight on this bike.

dusk

pointless having a light frame but heavy Reverb????? Just buy heavy wheels, bars, forks etc then :roll:

bails87

dusk wrote:

pointless having a light frame but heavy Reverb????? Just buy heavy wheels, bars, forks etc then :roll:

What a stupid way of looking at it.

A light frame with a reverb is better than a heavy frame with a reverb, all else being the same.

If a reverb is of no benefit to a rider then sure, there's no point carrying the weight of it around, but if it's useful then why not?

ljs1977

I went out on a Scale yesterday during a demo day. Carbon, no dropper but here's the rub - 29er.

The confidence over rougher stuff, down hills and the geometry on the scale all added up to me not missing it.

Just sayin!

So far I am thinking of ordering the scale and enjoying a different style of riding for a while

Cheers for your input

dusk

bails87 wrote:

dusk wrote:

pointless having a light frame but heavy Reverb????? Just buy heavy wheels, bars, forks etc then :roll:

What a stupid way of looking at it.

A light frame with a reverb is better than a heavy frame with a reverb, all else being the same.

If a reverb is of no benefit to a rider then sure, there's no point carrying the weight of it around, but if it's useful then why not?

That's what I was getting at

bluechair84

Cost/benefit ratio. If you are buying a carbon frame, then you are probably concerned that heavier components are less efficient and likely to slow you down, or reduce the range you can ride. If you ride on pretty arduous terrain, then a dropper post will save you more in energy than the weight of it will cost you by allowing you to be at the correct ride height all of the time. If you ride on towpaths, the energy lost in the increased weight will... outweigh the benefit of a dropper.

lawman

For what its worth at the leisure lakes demo today at cannock I rode a few bikes without droppers and I seriously missed having one, it amazed me how capable and versatile it made those had them feel, going down, drop it, going up, push a button and its right back where you left it before you dropped with no faffing around and stopping and ruining the fun and flow of a trail. Personally I think those that say they aren't worth the cost are wrong, they are worth their weight in gold and then some and I find it generally ruins a good trail without one now and if the technology is there why the hell not use it!

supersonic

There is no right or wrong about it really: it is preference.

rockmonkeysc

I wouldn't put a reverb on a hardtail, I know people who have and have blown seals and had all sorts of problems with them. I think they need rear suspension to isolate them a bit more from the trail.
Just learn to ride with your saddle at a height which works for almost all conditions. If it's a XC race bike your not going to be riding anything which needs the saddle fully dropped,

lawman

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I wouldn't put a reverb on a hardtail, I know people who have and have blown seals and had all sorts of problems with them. I think they need rear suspension to isolate them a bit more from the trail.
Just learn to ride with your saddle at a height which works for almost all conditions. If it's a XC race bike your not going to be riding anything which needs the saddle fully dropped,

So you end up with a compromise of descending of climbing heights and from experience that just plain sucks. And not putting one on a hardtail is just rubbish, its a hardtail and you're going to hovering over the saddle over anything rough anyway, so whoever blew seals and what not was clearly doing something wrong.

Admittedly some still do have problems, but they are still a new technology and once the small details are sorted I genuinely see no reason not to use one unless you race xc, they make sense on all trail bikes. I rode a fuel EX9.8 yesterday which had a dropper post and ISCG tabs as standard on a 130mm xc bike and it was awesome, one of the best bikes I rode all day and it was still stupidly light, yet felt far more capable than it had any right too, a well thought out bike and cleverly specced too. As I said before, if the technology is there, why not use it? And for those that haven't tried one, get down to a demo day and try one out, they are the single biggest thing I miss on a bike, I'd rather have a dropper than longer travel suspension or wider bars

rockmonkeysc

Thats three people I know who have had problems with Reverbs on their hardtails and they all had no problems with them on their full sus bikes.
I rarely drop the saddle on my XC bike but I ride down hills as fast as anyone else. I just don't see the need for one, it's just one more thing which needs servicing and something else to break.

DodgeT

Put a dropper on my first FS a couple of years ago, it transformed the rides (for me).
Bought a new FS which had a dropper as standard.
Built a hardtail (C456) and didn't fit a dropper at first. Used it for about 2 weeks then bought one. For me, they make a good bike a hell of a lot better.

lawman

DodgeT wrote:

Put a dropper on my first FS a couple of years ago, it transformed the rides (for me).
Bought a new FS which had a dropper as standard.
Built a hardtail (C456) and didn't fit a dropper at first. Used it for about 2 weeks then bought one. For me, they make a good bike a hell of a lot better.

Exactly this! The trek I rode yesterday had a reverb, the yeti sb66 and sb95 I tried didn't, and i felt more confident on the trek despite the reduced travel and smaller forks and tyres.