Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 1576
  1. #201
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    Quote Originally Posted by tootrikky View Post
    Quick Review on the new Troy after 3 rides.
    Any pics to post of your stallion? You have it set just how I plan, but with different wheels and tires. I will more than likely go with cheaper wheelset like WTB i23 w/350 hubs or Sun Charger SL's mated with Maxxis HRII/Ardent TR tires.

    I can't shake this trail rig out of my head after taking it a couple of times from LBS this week. Planning to demo one tomorrow night and keep for a couple of days to rally the local trails that I ride most and to see how it does. Was planning to get a little more slender dedicated XC/trail rig (SC 5010c) to complement my Rune V2, but immediately felt at home and comfortable on a large Troy (with short stem and wide bars of course).
    Ride On!

  2. #202
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    I did notice one thing on the XP build kit specs. They list the S1000 crank, but the actual crank looks exactly like the X5 crank just with different graphics. Minor, but they may have changed the spec per-production.

    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  3. #203
    Monkey Wrench
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    351

    My new Troy

    Here's my new rig, ready for a season of Enduro racing in Colorado.

    Medium frame
    Pike 160
    SRAM Rail 50 wheels
    Syntace Megaforce stem and flat 800mm alloy bar
    Syntace alloy seatpost (until I get my dropper)
    XX1 Drivetrain
    Race Face Next SL crank w/ 32t ring
    XTR XC pedals
    Ergon GA1 grips
    XTR trail brakes
    Hans Dampf tires Pacestar rear, Super gravity front
    26.25lbs as pictured2014 Devinci Troy quick review-img_20140118_121354_480.jpg
    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-img_20140118_121411_750.jpg
    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-img_20140118_121425_543.jpg
    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-img_20140118_123644_530.jpg
    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-img_20140121_172420_720.jpg
    Let me fix your bike @ ordinarybicycle.net in Louisville, CO

  4. #204
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    A review by Vital MTB. Looks like the spec of the bike was the only real thing that hurt it. I do not understand why the didn't get the spec they wanted then... Other than that, the review seemed pretty spot on from my experience riding so far. I have not ridden it in fast rocky sections yet though.

    Great looking build vwvoodoo. Do you plan on adding a dropper?

    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  5. #205
    Monkey Wrench
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    351
    It will definitely get a dropper - I had a KS Integra in it, but the way the housing has to float and move vertically within the seat tube did not work on the Troy. It will likely get a Reverb Stealth or a Thomson (if the internal version comes out soon).
    Let me fix your bike @ ordinarybicycle.net in Louisville, CO

  6. #206
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    A slight cost savings idea occurred to me. I'll be setting up a carbon XP with a 1x10 configuration. I won't have much to spend after the initial $3500 gets dropped, but am jonesing on a dropper. I wonder whether you could get a non stealth reverb and run it through the conduit meant for the front derailleur. I've seen the non stealths up to $200 cheaper than their slicker cousin. It would still look pretty clean if it'll fit. Just musing to bode my time before I grab mine in two weeks. Thoughts anyone?

  7. #207
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    Quote Originally Posted by tokarsky268 View Post
    A slight cost savings idea occurred to me. I'll be setting up a carbon XP with a 1x10 configuration. I won't have much to spend after the initial $3500 gets dropped, but am jonesing on a dropper. I wonder whether you could get a non stealth reverb and run it through the conduit meant for the front derailleur. I've seen the non stealths up to $200 cheaper than their slicker cousin. It would still look pretty clean if it'll fit. Just musing to bode my time before I grab mine in two weeks. Thoughts anyone?

    I ran my dropper post cable through the front derailleur routing just as you are talking about. It works great for my Xfusion dropper. I just put some protective tape on the seat stay where it rubs.

    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  8. #208
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    136
    [QUOTE]A slight cost savings idea occurred to me. I'll be setting up a carbon XP with a 1x10 configuration. I won't have much to spend after the initial $3500 gets dropped, but am jonesing on a dropper. I wonder whether you could get a non stealth reverb and run it through the conduit meant for the front derailleur. I've seen the non stealths up to $200 cheaper than their slicker cousin. It would still look pretty clean if it'll fit. Just musing to bode my time before I grab mine in two weeks. Thoughts anyone?/QUOTE]

    Drew is that you? Brett you are a great ambassador for Devinci. You can for sure run an external dropper through the one for the dropper or the front Derailleur. The reverb stealth is so much better than the regular though (kinking at the seat) but any other external routed one would work well too.

  9. #209
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    It is me indeed. Thanks for the feedback. Looking forward to our demo in a couple weeks.

  10. #210
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    Here is a video from yesterday. The bike destroys downhills at speed!

    <iframe width='500' height='281' src='http://www.pinkbike.com/v/embed/348929/?colors=C80000' allowfullscreen frameborder='0'></iframe>

    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  11. #211
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    Brett, you're the man. Awesome footage! Thanks so much for sharing.

  12. #212
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulpwoody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    428
    Man that looks fun.

  13. #213
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    Brett, how did the suspension handle that trail. Relatively plush?

  14. #214
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    703
    Was there an ongoing crime scene happening at the bottom of that trail?

  15. #215
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    Quote Originally Posted by tokarsky268 View Post
    Brett, how did the suspension handle that trail. Relatively plush?
    Yes, it was very plush. I probably could have put a little bit more air in in from my normal trail riding even, but it felt great in the Trail Mode on the rear. The Pike never felt like it was riding low in travel, I just adjusted the compression on it a turn or two from normal. I definitely felt like the bike wanted to go faster than I was allowing it to go.



    Was there an ongoing crime scene happening at the bottom of that trail?
    HAHA! Nope, but the yellow tape makes it look that way!


    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  16. #216
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    174

    Troy Top Tube Length

    Well I thought I'd stir the pot some on the top tube length issue. I don't own a troy, or have a troy to measure, but I do have an interest in buying one.

    So let's have a fun and possibly inaccurate time scaling off some pictures. The album of fullsized pics is available here: Devinci Troy Geometry - Imgur for the time being. I recommend viewing there and using the photos in this thread as reference.

    To start with here is a picture lifted from the devinci.com site and then marked up in an image editor.2014 Devinci Troy quick review-compare-troy-fromdevinci.com-carbonsl.jpg

    What I've done is to mark the BB and rear axle positions, use that and the known stat of a 16.9" chainstays to get a measurement of pixels per inch. Then I measure distance to front axle, top tube, in 2 different ways, reach, seat tube length, etc. To come up with this chart:

    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-devincitroysl-geochartcomparison.jpg


    So as you can see above, most of the measurements from the image match the geo chart fairly well, within +/-1.5%. Excepting ETT or VTT measurements which are off by 6-8%. Interesting result.

    So I tried another image:

    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-compare-troy-frommtbcult.-carbonsl.jpg

    And Geometry chart resulting:

    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-devincitroysl-mtbcult.-geochartcomparison.jpg

    Again we see all the numbers are within +/-2% this time. Except for ETT or VTT which are 6-7%.

    Let's start talking about why this isn't a great way to evaluate frames before we get to some conclusions:
    -The frame in question has to be parallel and centered to camera to prevent significant measuring errors (front and rear wheels must be level, and equidistant) to the camera lense.
    -Accuracy probably could have been improved if I had used another decimal place in the chainstay calc, but 16.9 is right between 430mm and 428mm. So it's a reasonable ih the middle compromise. Unknown if frame was in Hi or Lo geometry for Pic.
    -Surely the height of the camera plays into this as well.
    -The further the camera is away from the subject should result in the light gathered by the lens being more parallel , reducing image distortion, parallax errors, other sort of lens effects I'm in no way qualified to talk about. Likely the ideal shot is from an infinite distance away using a nearly infinite zoom lens....
    -Barrel distortion and other lens distortions could be an issue
    -No way of knowing these images are real. They look real, but there is always photoshop. If you compare the Troy RR vs SL images you'll see the cable routing changes slightly along with the component change, but they do a very good job re-aligning things like the crank arms and valve stems to the same positions. Someone either spent a lot of time with the Troy photo shoot (which is appreciated) or a lot of time in photoshop and I couldn't tell (but I don't think so)
    -The images chosen were the best I could find. The one from Devinci may be a bit low. The one from MTBCult looks to me like perhaps it was taken with the camera centered a bit to the rear of the bike and then the image was cropped?
    -I tried this same technique with other frames, including an YETI ASR5 which I own (so I can validate measurements) and the positioning of the bike and camera seem to make a pretty big difference, trying this without an ideal shot isn't really worth the time it would seem.
    -Compared to some of the other pics and manufacturers spec's I tried this with, in order to make sure the technique had some level of workability the numbers from Devinci are actually really good, excepting the TT. So props to them on that. Some manufacturers geo sheets just seem to be total works of fiction.
    -Since we know that other brands likely have incorrect data out there as well for various measurements, it's not necessarily reasonable to use your personal feel and previous bike's numbers as a guide for comparison to a Troy you sat on.

    So now that all the caveats I can think of are out of the way, what does this say about the Troy? Well it seems quite possible that the Devinci top tubes run shorter than they claim on their website. Probably by about an inch or an inch and a half.

    If you look at the design this makes a fair bit of sense. With 16.9" chainstays and 140mm of travel where is the wheel going to end up? Additional space is also needed for the brace that goes across the top of the rear triangle. There is no complex linkage here to provide a more rearward wheel path in order to get the wheel out of the way of the seatstay. So the only thing to do in order to cram the big wheel and travel in is to move the seat tube forward and to keep the seat tube angle fairly upright as well.

    Take a look at an overlay photo of a size M ASR5 (also a 16.9" chainstay) and a Size M Troy Both are scaled to correct proportions. The Yeti the white/ghostish looking bike. The bikes are aligned at the BB.

    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-troy-asr5-overlay.jpg.

    The reach on the Troy is about .5" longer (16.5 troy vs 16 asr5) and you can see that in the head tube positioning relative to the BB's which are aligned. However you can see the massive difference in seat post location. My ASR5 with a 140 fox 32 HTT measures somewhere between 23.75-24" when measured in the real world using a level and reasonably decent technique. So in the picture if you use the ASR5 as the 24" standard, based on the numbers the Troy should be the nearly the same. Clearly it's not. You can see the huge difference.

    Other fun facts. If you measure the Seat tube angle from BB to top of seat tube on the fence pic you get 77 degrees. If you measure BB to the orange dot where I measured ETT at. You get 75.2 degrees. The top of seat is ~28.5 from the BB, on a 75.43 degree angle (7.175" horizontal offset, 27.61" vertical) I'm not sure how that compares to anything else but it seems like it could be an interesting study.

    I don't know much about setting up bikes for proper pedaling so I won't write much about it here other than to ask, if on previous 26" trail bikes people were centering their saddles to get their knee caps in line with the pedal axle at a particular part of the pedal stroke. Are we now seeing on these 650b trail bikes with the seat tubes pushed forward and kept steep, a trend towards people slamming their saddle rearwards as much as possible to try to return their pedaling position? Or was the old geometry incorrect and this new stuff offers superior pedaling geometry?


    I'm not attempting to slam moving the seat/seatpost forward, new forward geometry, longer reach, or any other new geometry trend. Or to debate the merits of them. I haven't really gotten to try it yet but I'm extremely interested and it seems like to way of the future. I'm just trying to analyze the actual frame sizing and rider positioning vs the published specs.


    Conclusion: The cockpit is more forward on most of the longer travel 650b trail bikes in order to accomodate the wheel size. This is one of the driving reasons for the new bikes all having longer reach, and longer front centers. The rider has to go somewhere. But in the case of the Troy the seat tube is either too upright, too far forward, or the reach just isn't long enough to make up the difference. Based on Devinci's numbers and their defense of the numbers on the bike mag review comments (along with publishing no data to back up their claims (how about a cad drawing of a dimensioned photo? or a picture of a guy with a ruler?)) I have to say that my personally opinion is that Devinci is publishing incorrect data in order to have a "longer" bike right now which seems to be in vogue.

    I'll end with: I don't have a Troy. I haven't measured one in person. I haven't ridden one. But I do have at least 2 decent pictures of one.... So take all of the above with a grain of salt.

  17. #217
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    Interesting analysis db. I had a demo large Troy for 4 days this past week, hitting all my favorite local trails. I didn't do an analysis of any short other than taking some measurements on general sizing. The horizontal (Eff TT) measurement I got was 23.3" in a large, so 1.3" short of listed. Not that big of a deal, just need to size up as needed. My go to AM bike is a medium with 23" ETT, so large Troy felt good to me while hammering the trails. With 150 fork up front (Pike), I found myself wanting to drop the front end for climbs due to slack'ish feeling STA and taller front end then my AM bike (Banshee Rune). So for me, I would want a large at 5'10" with 50-60 stem and adj. fork (150-120) for the climbs, but still aggro enough for descents. I cruised the shops Troy c with 160 Pike and feels really off balanced to me. I suppose if you are just descending might be alright, but think raises the BB too much since bike rides tall due to progressive nature of shock to resist bottom out in last half of travel. The bike is a pretty fun and playful bike (excellent jumper) for having the bigger wheels and carries speed well when hauling and not having to change speed abruptly. Can see how Stevie Smith killed it on A-line on this bike. Has that "freight train" feel when moving at a constant speed and really fun to jump due to progressive leverage rate.
    Ride On!

  18. #218
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    Sorry to be a dick, but you cannot measure ETT on most suspension bikes, including the Troy, because the seat tube is not on axis with the BB. I would not advertise those numbers on the internet as they are WRONG! (unless you made some kind of measuring jig to do it, then I am really a dick)


    Quote Originally Posted by jgusta View Post
    Interesting analysis db. I had a demo large Troy for 4 days this past week, hitting all my favorite local trails. I didn't do an analysis of any short other than taking some measurements on general sizing. The horizontal (Eff TT) measurement I got was 23.3" in a large, so 1.3" short of listed. Not that big of a deal, just need to size up as needed. My go to AM bike is a medium with 23" ETT, so large Troy felt good to me while hammering the trails. With 150 fork up front (Pike), I found myself wanting to drop the front end for climbs due to slack'ish feeling STA and taller front end then my AM bike (Banshee Rune). So for me, I would want a large at 5'10" with 50-60 stem and adj. fork (150-120) for the climbs, but still aggro enough for descents. I cruised the shops Troy c with 160 Pike and feels really off balanced to me. I suppose if you are just descending might be alright, but think raises the BB too much since bike rides tall due to progressive nature of shock to resist bottom out in last half of travel. The bike is a pretty fun and playful bike (excellent jumper) for having the bigger wheels and carries speed well when hauling and not having to change speed abruptly. Can see how Stevie Smith killed it on A-line on this bike. Has that "freight train" feel when moving at a constant speed and really fun to jump due to progressive leverage rate.

  19. #219
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    Wow, that was a lot of work...

    As an update on my Troy, I bent my stock handlebars. I have some RF SIXC 785mm bars on the way!

    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  20. #220
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,646
    Quote Originally Posted by dberndt View Post
    Well I thought I'd stir the pot some on the top tube length issue. I don't own a troy, or have a troy to measure, but I do have an interest in buying one.

    But I do have at least 2 decent pictures of one.... So take all of the above with a grain of salt.
    Wow. That's a lot of interesting calcuations there. Thanks for taking the time. The only thing you haven't done is measured the Troy as Devinci does. Try drawing a straight line from the BB to the top of the seat post. Then extend your horizontal line from the top of the head tube back far enough to intersect that line. I believe that is the effective/virtual top tube measurement that Devinci uses on their website.

    Be interesting to see what you get, but I bet it will be closer to their published number. Still seems like they are a bit short compared to other comparably sized frames as you've pointed out. I still can't explain why the medium I rode at Outerbike felt fairly roomy despite my normally needing a large size frame and being 5' 11.5".... unless it really was a large.

    I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll repost it here for clarification of what I was talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms View Post
    Christmas refresher course:



    Words by Noel:

    Measuring top tube length is generally considered to be a horizontal line from the center axis of the top of the head tube, that goes backwards and intersects with the seat tube axis. The trick is, what is the difference between TT length and ETT length? On a frame with traditional construction (i.e. where the seat tube axis pierces the BB shell's axis), the ETT length and the TT length are exactly the same.

    However, on a frame where the seat tube axis does NOT pierce the BB shell axis, the standard TT length then becomes meaningless because the seat tube angle doesn't mean anything. This is an issue on many, many modern frames, not just Knolly frames. Consider the multitude of frames that have "bent" seat tubes (whether actually bent or hydro-formed aluminum tubes, or are laid up in carbon this way). While the bottom of the seat tube may match up with the BB shell, the seat tube axis (where the seat post is installed into the seat tube) does NOT pierce the BB shell axis. This is extremely common to ensure that there is enough room for the rear wheel / rear linkage under full compression of the frame. On these kinds of frames, the actual seat tube angle cannot be used to make an effective measurement of the top tube length. Additionally, since the actual angle of the seat tube is slacker than the normal range of 72-74 degrees (for an MTB) when the seat is raised, it's hard to get a good indication of where the seat will be a) relative to the BB axis, and b) relative to the head tube.
    Hence, the creation of the ETT(Effective Top Tube length). The idea here is to have a "virtual" seat tube: this is essentially an imaginary axis that is at a prescribed angle (i.e. 73 degrees) and this axis is considered to pierce the BB shell axis. On any well designed frame with a seat tube that doesn't pierce the BB shell axis, the actual seat tube and the virtual seat tube should meet up where the saddle would be in a normal pedaling position. When dropped, the saddle will move slightly forwards, away from the virtual seat tube axis. While it's very obvious on our frames (because the seat tube intersects the down tube visually), the same situation exists on many (in fact, most) modern frames with travel more than about 5" because the tire and rear linkage need somewhere to go when fully compressed.

    The diagram gives a good idea of what happens here. Obviously, I can't speak for other manufacturers, but the situation shown in the diagram (with the continuous seat tube) is exactly how Knolly frames are designed. There are obviously a few more tweaks than this in determining frame geometry, but this gives the general idea, and how ETT length and TT length are similar, but not quite the same thing. It also explains how we deal with ensuring that we have enough room behind the seat tube for the rear wheel and linkage, while still allowing a full length seat tube to be used in the frame (especially important for medium and small frames and customers using dropper posts).

    Assuming that the seat tube angle is reasonable, ETT is the correct measurement when looking to determine the top tube length for fitting frame sizes, as (actual) TT length is meaningless for any frame that doesn't have a seat tube axis that pierces the BB shell axis.
    I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  21. #221
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    Actually the line should come from the BB at the Virtual Seat Angle to the instersectuion point of a horizontal line that intersects the head tube. In other words if you are using the actual seatpost or seat to make this measurement you are doing it wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by KRob View Post
    Wow. That's a lot of interesting calcuations there. Thanks for taking the time. The only thing you haven't done is measured the Troy as Devinci does. Try drawing a straight line from the BB to the top of the seat post. Then extend your horizontal line from the top of the head tube back far enough to intersect that line. I believe that is the effective/virtual top tube measurement that Devinci uses on their website.

    Be interesting to see what you get, but I bet it will be closer to their published number. Still seems like they are a bit short compared to other comparably sized frames as you've pointed out. I still can't explain why the medium I rode at Outerbike felt fairly roomy despite my normally needing a large size frame and being 5' 11.5".... unless it really was a large.

    I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll repost it here for clarification of what I was talking about.

  22. #222
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FlavC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    83
    tootrikky: it is very easy to measure ETT on a suspension bike (within a few mm)...all you need is a level and straight edge to mark where along the seatpost to measure. (Assuming we're using the "standard" definition of ETT, which is: center of the top of the headtube to the the center of the seatpost, along a horizontal line.

    dberndt: I measured a couple bikes in person and got very similar numbers for ETT and effective seat angle as you did. My method for seat angle was kinda crude, but I estimated between 75-76.

    I have demo'd a small and medium Troy on steep, rocky and rooty trails.

    For reference, I'm 5'6", and about 29-30" inseam depending on how you measure. I am usually in between a size small or medium in most brands...and have alternated back and forth over the years. I'm currently riding a size small Devinci Dixon and love the fit. I would not want my Dixon to be any bigger at all.

    Based on this (and the geo chart), I thought a small Troy would be perfect and took one out for a demo. I liked the bike, but the fit just seemed a little off. Later, I took out a medium Troy. The medium felt much better.

    I'm pretty sure that the steep effective SA and resulting short ETT is why I needed to size up on this frame.

    The steep seat angle puts you in a great position for climbing, but the shorter ETT made me feel slightly cramped while SEATED and pedaling over rough trails on the small frame. Also, I noticed that the more forward position of the saddle made it slightly harder to lean the bike under me during aggressive corning, when the seatpost was fully extended.

    The medium didn't have that "cramped" or "too far forward" feeling that I had on the small frame. The longer reach seemed to solve any complaints I had about the fit.

    So, if anyone else is between sizes on this bike, I'd recommend sizing up.

    Regarding saddle fore/aft positioning...I think it might be difficult to use the KOPS (Knee over pedal spindle) method on any of these bikes (not just the Troy) with a steep Eff SA. Especially considering that almost no one makes a good dropper post with setback.

    However, I'm not sure it is a big deal if you consider most of these bikes are marketed as SuperD or Enduro focused. While KOPS *might* be a good starting point for road and endurance racing, a slightly more forward position combined with a shorter crank length should allow you to spin faster (like when sprinting during an Enduro segment). At least that is my opinion based on what I've read on the subject.

  23. #223
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    Ok I am just being argumentive here. I might be motivated enough to make a jig to measure Virtual ETT and compare to it to the published website numbers though.

  24. #224
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    174
    Thanks for the input Krob. I'll see about making that measurement.

    Personally I don't like the idea behind this measurement as it depends on seat height, which is a personal adjustment and not a measurement of the frame at all. Maybe if I saw it in more places it would start to make more sense to me...

    So... top of the seat post is the measurement, the diagram isn't exactly clear. If we assume top of the seat post/at the rails we could make do with the spot I already have on the devinci pick from MTBCult.it where the orange dot is at more or less that point.

    top of seatpost/saddle rails A(399,112)
    Bottom bracket B(511,538)
    HTT line (same as stack line) ( X, 151)

    Where X lies on the line drawn straight from A to B
    So some dodgy math which doesn't do fancy trig, just uses some ratios to move down that line:
    =((151-112)/426)*112+399=409 X=409
    So the insect point is 409,151 which means the calculated KRob style VTT is 574.3MM or 22.6". The % difference then becomes 94.6%.

    Drawing it out confirms the same result. I'll consider updating the images/doc with this measurement method at some point as well.

    There will never be much diffence between this and the way I measured HTT in Red because the virtual seat angle is just not that extreme in comparison to the real seat tube angle and the seat tube offset (77.3 degrees real vs 74.75 virtual in this case) and more importantly the seat height any mountain biker has over top of the top of the "Stack"/center of top tube cup line is just never very much on an appropriately size bike. A few degrees delta for 2 inches is still likely to be less than ~.3"

  25. #225
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FlavC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by tootrikky View Post
    Put the Bong down and read this a few times please
    Ok, let's just assume that what you posted is the one and only way to measure ETT, and that no other manufacturer does it differently.

    If so, what should the "Raised saddle height for proper pedaling position" be in this case? Per the diagram, it looks like the ETT will vary depending on this reference point?

  26. #226
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by FlavC View Post
    If so, what should the "Raised saddle height for proper pedaling position" be in this case? Per the diagram, it looks like the ETT will vary depending on this reference point?

    This is my question as well. It issue is complicated. This definition of Virtual seat tube requires you to know how high up the seat will be. Which sort of means you'd have to sit on the bike and see already. It seems to make bike sizing recursive. In order to size this bike you must first know the size of the bike. Or perhaps we should all start measuring our Veritcal distance from BB to saddle rails and keep that in mind as a factor when sizing so we could work out the virtual saddle position on any frame we want to size so we can then work out the virtual top tube length for us with the seat at that height.

    As an aside to the above any reasonable seat height will make a good approximation as the angle deltas are typically low, and if they weren't the cockpit would have 3 modes:
    -Seat is low, therefore seat is too far forward, pedals are directly under saddle rails, pedalling feels impossible for anyone that has knees
    -Seat is in a normalish range, seat is sufficiently far back to pedal comfortably, success
    -Seat is too high, bottom bracket is now way in front of KOPS. good luck.
    If the real STA was say 45 degrees then within a 4" height adjustment all of the above positions could be possible. But it makes the bike pretty difficult to fit to customers, no one will buy it, so no one makes bike this way. Except maybe some downhill bikes with interrupted seat tubes which arent really meant for sitting on anyways.


    IMO I really only care about the sizing between the top of my stem and the horizontal line of my seatpost that it intersects with. It takes into account the stack of the stem and spacers, which can easily reduce the effective reach from butt to bars by a fair bit. Especially on slacker bikes. Take a frame with a 75 degree real seat tube angle and a 64 degree HTA and let the distance from top of head tube to top of stem be 3" (Sounds like a mile if we're trying to be cool on the internet... slam that stem, ENDURO! but probably not an unreasonable number) and the 11 degree delta over 3" vertical is .58" of horizontal. This difference in real, feelable (at your fingertips/butt) seems like a much more meaningul, easier to measure, and sensible measurement.

    So in summary, for me personally
    HTT - An interesting measurement, but not super meaningful. Can make it mean a lot more to me if I know the approximate STA/HTA and stack.
    KRobs/Noels/other's ETT - Couldn't really care less, not well defined, not significantly different for most frames compared to HTT. In my head this is VTT, Virtual top tube measurements, it's so virtual it should virtually disappear.
    ETT - A measurement from the middle/top of stem on a horizontal line to where it crosses the seat tube. The most reasonably useful number to quickly give me a reasonable idea on frame size. This ofcourse is problematic in a standards sense, number of stems, etc. I'm not proposing it be an industry standard, nor am I on a war path to have everyone adopt it. It just seems more logical to me than VTT, and possibly slightly better than HTT.


    Still doesn't change the fact that Devinci's sizing chart is incorrect no matter what unique measurement method we can cook up.

  27. #227
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    it's not the one and only way, it's just the way Devinci happend to do it. When someone grabs a tape measure and compares the numbers to Devinci's, and then posts them on the internet, I feel it's misleading.


    Quote Originally Posted by FlavC View Post
    Ok, let's just assume that what you posted is the one and only way to measure ETT, and that no other manufacturer does it differently.

    If so, what should the "Raised saddle height for proper pedaling position" be in this case? Per the diagram, it looks like the ETT will vary depending on this reference point?

  28. #228
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,332
    KRob is exactly right on this.... it's not that complicated, guys.

  29. #229
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FlavC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by doismellbacon View Post
    KRob is exactly right on this.... it's not that complicated, guys.

    Ah yes. Sorry, I forgot this was the internet, and that anything that gets posted enough times becomes truth. It doesn't matter that the stated method of measurement will generate different numbers, depending on a unknown reference point of "Raised saddle height for proper pedaling position". Or that tootrikky states in one post that " I did try to measure the TT but nothing conclusive came of that due to it being a virtual measurement. ", then states matter of factly that this method is how Devinci did it. How does he know this? Did Devinci say this? If so, that would put to rest a hell of a lot of arguing on this thread.

    I just wanted to possibly help others by giving my impression of the two sizes I demo'd and how they differed from what I expected based on the published geo numbers.

    I will now bow out of any further internet discussion involving math and/or logic.

  30. #230
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    VTT is ETT. You are missing the point. ETT on a bike with an interrupted seat tube becomes a virtual dimension because the seat tube is not on axis with the actual seat tube. Please respond with two ^^ if you understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by dberndt View Post
    This is my question as well. It issue is complicated. This definition of Virtual seat tube requires you to know how high up the seat will be. Which sort of means you'd have to sit on the bike and see already. It seems to make bike sizing recursive. In order to size this bike you must first know the size of the bike. Or perhaps we should all start measuring our Veritcal distance from BB to saddle rails and keep that in mind as a factor when sizing so we could work out the virtual saddle position on any frame we want to size so we can then work out the virtual top tube length for us with the seat at that height.

    As an aside to the above any reasonable seat height will make a good approximation as the angle deltas are typically low, and if they weren't the cockpit would have 3 modes:
    -Seat is low, therefore seat is too far forward, pedals are directly under saddle rails, pedalling feels impossible for anyone that has knees
    -Seat is in a normalish range, seat is sufficiently far back to pedal comfortably, success
    -Seat is too high, bottom bracket is now way in front of KOPS. good luck.
    If the real STA was say 45 degrees then within a 4" height adjustment all of the above positions could be possible. But it makes the bike pretty difficult to fit to customers, no one will buy it, so no one makes bike this way. Except maybe some downhill bikes with interrupted seat tubes which arent really meant for sitting on anyways.


    IMO I really only care about the sizing between the top of my stem and the horizontal line of my seatpost that it intersects with. It takes into account the stack of the stem and spacers, which can easily reduce the effective reach from butt to bars by a fair bit. Especially on slacker bikes. Take a frame with a 75 degree real seat tube angle and a 64 degree HTA and let the distance from top of head tube to top of stem be 3" (Sounds like a mile if we're trying to be cool on the internet... slam that stem, ENDURO! but probably not an unreasonable number) and the 11 degree delta over 3" vertical is .58" of horizontal. This difference in real, feelable (at your fingertips/butt) seems like a much more meaningul, easier to measure, and sensible measurement.

    So in summary, for me personally
    HTT - An interesting measurement, but not super meaningful. Can make it mean a lot more to me if I know the approximate STA/HTA and stack.
    KRobs/Noels/other's ETT - Couldn't really care less, not well defined, not significantly different for most frames compared to HTT. In my head this is VTT, Virtual top tube measurements, it's so virtual it should virtually disappear.
    ETT - A measurement from the middle/top of stem on a horizontal line to where it crosses the seat tube. The most reasonably useful number to quickly give me a reasonable idea on frame size. This ofcourse is problematic in a standards sense, number of stems, etc. I'm not proposing it be an industry standard, nor am I on a war path to have everyone adopt it. It just seems more logical to me than VTT, and possibly slightly better than HTT.


    Still doesn't change the fact that Devinci's sizing chart is incorrect no matter what unique measurement method we can cook up.

  31. #231
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by tootrikky View Post
    VTT is ETT. You are missing the point. ETT on a bike with an interrupted seat tube becomes a virtual dimension because the seat tube is not on axis with the actual seat tube. Please respond with two ^^ if you understand.

    VTT itself isn't perfect. Having a measurement based on seat height doesn't quantify anything if we're looking at frame geometry. Just like we don't talk about how long a stem is and how that affects fit when we're discussing frame geometry. Because it's not part of the frame. Likewise figuring out how high the saddle should be before we calculate VTT is involving something that isn't part of the frame into the equation and I do not approve.

    If we had some standard saying we added 60% of the reach or 100% of the stack, or any such numerical standard to determine the "standard saddle rail height" for a particular frame, which we could then use that to calculate the VTT. I'd be fine with that. Because it's self defining, you know some rules and away you go.

    Otherwise the definition of how to calculate VTT is not fully defined. When a 2 year old asks you how they build a crane on a building site. Do you tell them that they built it with a bigger crane? It's a good answer for a 2 year old, but a terrible answer in application.

    Also, as I defined ETT above, VTT is by definition not ETT. VTT measures at the top of the headtube. If you want to argue that HTT becomes VTT I might be interested in hearing that.

    Everyone has a different definition of what these measurements are. For instance I don't think any mountain biker would ever consider this to be a way to measure ETT: Top Tube Length (Effective) | www.bikecad.ca but bikecad seems to think it is, and they're reliable right? Might as well be pissing into the wind here trying to get everyone to agree.

    Anyways, the point I was trying to make at the start of the day was that the Troy TT numbers are fudged no matter how you measure them. I'm going to try to stick on that topic and not discuss frame measure technique/definitions further.

  32. #232
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    This discussion is making my head spin. A valid one, but a head spinner for sure. If I can redirect this discussion a bit: does anyone else think that some reviewers are being overly critical on the Troy because of the rediculous hype and unrealistic expectation of the bike after Smith won the Air DH on it?

  33. #233
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    10,450
    Quote Originally Posted by tokarsky268 View Post
    If I can redirect this discussion a bit: does anyone else think that some reviewers are being overly critical on the Troy because of the rediculous hype and unrealistic expectation of the bike after Smith won the Air DH on it?
    Devinci doesn't have a huge ad budget compared to some other companies. Magazine reviewers have to say some negative stuff occasionally to look objective so they take it out on the Troy. Not on a Specialized or Trek bike.

    Follow the dollars. The truth is out there.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  34. #234
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    My point is pretty simple; Nobody on this forum can argue conclusively that Devinci's numbers are wrong or right because most likely the TT length is a virtual measurement, and therefore is a hard to measure. We can use our years of experience to evaluate the feel, compare with other bikes we ride, that's all good. Personally my XL feels short to me in the TT btw.

    However, measuring the ETT of a Troy by the horizontal distance from the centerline of the seat tube to centerline of the head tube than comparing these numbers to the published Devinco Geo Chart is pointless imo.



    Quote Originally Posted by FlavC View Post
    Ah yes. Sorry, I forgot this was the internet, and that anything that gets posted enough times becomes truth. It doesn't matter that the stated method of measurement will generate different numbers, depending on a unknown reference point of "Raised saddle height for proper pedaling position". Or that tootrikky states in one post that " I did try to measure the TT but nothing conclusive came of that due to it being a virtual measurement. ", then states matter of factly that this method is how Devinci did it. How does he know this? Did Devinci say this? If so, that would put to rest a hell of a lot of arguing on this thread.

    I just wanted to possibly help others by giving my impression of the two sizes I demo'd and how they differed from what I expected based on the published geo numbers.

    I will now bow out of any further internet discussion involving math and/or logic.

  35. #235
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    174

    Re: 2014 Devinci Troy quick review

    Quote Originally Posted by tootrikky View Post
    My point is pretty simple; Nobody on this forum can argue conclusively that Devinci's numbers are wrong or right because most likely the TT length is a virtual measurement, and therefore is a hard to measure. We can use our years of experience to evaluate the feel, compare with other bikes we ride, that's all good. Personally my XL feels short to me in the TT btw.

    However, measuring the ETT of a Troy by the horizontal distance from the centerline of the seat tube to centerline of the head tube than comparing these numbers to the published Devinco Geo Chart is pointless imo.
    Read my other post in response to Krob's request for VTT data. Which I provide. There are 3 different toptube measurements now provided and none are close to matching Devinci's numbers.

    As I pointed out previously none of the angles and offsets involved in vtt vs htt for this or most similar frames could possibly come close to making more than .5" difference. If the vtt magic number gave us a result within .5" of spec I don't think we would be still having this conversation or be hearing about it in the bike bible review etc. It takes 10 seconds to say the frame is a bit short but 5 minutes to whine endless on video about how short the frame felt.

    Is it conclusive? Nope. But it's extremely convincing in my opinion.

    I would love to see someone who owns one post pics with a tape measure. Even I'd they don't confirm vtt, with seat angle and distance from bb to saddle rails we can calculate vtt anyways.

  36. #236
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Devinci doesn't have a huge ad budget compared to some other companies. Magazine reviewers have to say some negative stuff occasionally to look objective so they take it out on the Troy. Not on a Specialized or Trek bike.

    Follow the dollars. The truth is out there.
    That just happened

  37. #237
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    63
    Ok I'll agree for the most part. However I would like to add that by adding the error one gets by "eyeballing" the center of the head tube and seat tube, then attempting to get the horizontal length between these two, while holding the bike perfectly vertical, and horizontal from axle to axle. Adding the whole VTT variable on top of this makes it difficult, to get much out of any garage measurements. Just my 2 cents

    Quote Originally Posted by dberndt View Post
    Read my other post in response to Krob's request for VTT data. Which I provide. There are 3 different toptube measurements now provided and none are close to matching Devinci's numbers.

    As I pointed out previously none of the angles and offsets involved in vtt vs htt for this or most similar frames could possibly come close to making more than .5" difference. If the vtt magic number gave us a result within .5" of spec I don't think we would be still having this conversation or be hearing about it in the bike bible review etc. It takes 10 seconds to say the frame is a bit short but 5 minutes to whine endless on video about how short the frame felt.

    Is it conclusive? Nope. But it's extremely convincing in my opinion.

    I would love to see someone who owns one post pics with a tape measure. Even I'd they don't confirm vtt, with seat angle and distance from bb to saddle rails we can calculate vtt anyways.
    Last edited by tootrikky; 01-28-2014 at 10:34 PM.

  38. #238
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Devinci doesn't have a huge ad budget compared to some other companies. Magazine reviewers have to say some negative stuff occasionally to look objective so they take it out on the Troy. Not on a Specialized or Trek bike.

    Follow the dollars. The truth is out there.
    Funny thing is that Ryan Palmer (BIKE tester) gave it all kinds of praise (even on Alu XP kit) when tested and ridden in 100 degree heat at Innerbike/Bootleg Canyon, then spent most of the review slamming it in Sedona on the Bible Test due to having wrong specced sizing. Bottom line is, all bikes size and fit differently (half of bikes out there I am a medium, other half I am a large, Troy I was a large). FWIW, I thought the Troy was a lot of fun to ride, just not as snappy of an accelerator when pedalling that I was hoping for. Soild aggro trail/AM bike for sure!
    Ride On!

  39. #239
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    Funny indeed. Side note: demoing a Troy carbon and sight next week. I'm super psyched. The shop has a Banshee Spitfire as well at a similar price point. Read about all the company stuff, but has anyone actually ridden one of these? If any of you had, how would you compare to the Troy? Thanks

  40. #240
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,656
    since the ETT of a bent seat tube frame is based on "virtual seat tube" which depends on saddle height, it's a moving target, so, that's a good reason for manufacturers to add "reach" measurement to their geometry charts, since it's not affected by seat tube angle.

  41. #241
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    140
    Devinci Troy Bible of Bike Tests Review

    What the hell was that all about? They pretty much bashed this bike like there was some ulterior motive or something.

    Anyway, a full carbon bike with the Pike at $3400 is looking pretty good to me right now. Its it crazy to think this is probably the best bike for the value out there?

  42. #242
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    163
    For value, there really isn't any other bike that can touch the carbon Troy with the XP build right now. Frame is $2400, fork is right about $1K so you're getting everything else for free essentially.

    A lot has been made of the Bike Mag review. But if you boil it down, they mostly carped on the sizing — which is 100% a personal preference — and the lack of the Pike — which you get, ironically, if you go with the lower priced build.

    If you put much stock in reviews, then also check out some other reviews like Bike Radar, PinkBike and an earlier review by Bike that was pretty positive — just to get a broader sense of what else is being said about the Troy. Better yet, ask some of the Troy owners on this forum what they think after building up bikes sized for themselves. Most seem pretty stoked.

  43. #243
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    Its sick value on a bike that would be at the top of my list even if I had double to spend. I'm planning on getting one unless I'm in love with either the Sight Carbon or Spitfire. I can't see how either of those would wow me enough to make me look past the great deal that is the carbon XP. The only thing I could see is the Dixon carbon with an RS build. Same price point as the Troy carbon except 26er with a 160 Pike and a Float X. Looking forward to making that decision with a demo of what are dream bikes to me coming from a dinosaur.(Pro Flex 957)

  44. #244
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,766
    Does the Carbon XP include a dropper?

    If it did I'd be sold, but the Sight Carbon has the dropper.

    Another thing that worrying too is that the Troy Carbon is 28lbs off the shelf, where the Sight Carbon is 26lbs with dropper. Where's that extra 2lbs coming from?
    GIS/GPS Pro using ArcFM for Utility Mapping - Always willing to connect with other MTBers in the industry.

  45. #245
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    163
    The 26 lb Sight is a much more bling build than the Carbon XP Troy — which does not include a dropper.

    Either way, I'm curious to hear thoughts on the two bikes head to head b/c I'm in the same boat.

  46. #246
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeynets View Post
    The 26 lb Sight is a much more bling build than the Carbon XP Troy — which does not include a dropper.

    Either way, I'm curious to hear thoughts on the two bikes head to head b/c I'm in the same boat.
    I rode them both this past week. Troy for 4 days and Sight c for ony 1hr. Both bikes are fun and have their pros/cons. Overall, the Sight c was by far the better pedaller, more snappy, responsive with excellent small bump and handled chatter quite well. Downside, was that it would use all the travel with anything 1-2 feet, harsh bottom to frame with anything near 3 feet or more with with 30% sag max, lots of tire pressure. So, the Sight felt more of a better XC/trail bike to me where you plan to keep the wheels on the ground more or not doing any hits on your ride. The geometry was absolutely dialed for pedalling with 140 fork on steep inclines, declines and flat out pedalling.

    Troy, the far better jumper and better descender due to feeling a little more stoutly and progressive nature of shock/suspension. Only downside to Troy it was a sluggish climber at times, didn't react to changes in speed quickly and felt I needed an adj. fork on it (mine had 150 Pike) to be comfortable on climbs, unless I was out of the saddle and had to use lockout to minimize all the bobbing. Excellent small bump and great trail compliancy and cush in first half of travel and rapidly became more and more progressive towards the end, which made it feel a little harsh at high speeds and tall sensation at times despite it's low static BB height. Excellent jumper, easily as well as my Banshee Rune, if not better due to inherent progression in suspension. And bike did well maintaining and hauling like a "freight train" on sections where didn't have to change speed. Both good bikes and a lot of fun and perhaps even more supple than my +6" Rune w/reservoir high volumed shock in the chatter at slower speeds especially.

    FWIW, I rode a large Troy with 60 stem and felt almost identical to my medium Rune w/50 stem and found the ETT to be at least 1.3" off from published numbers on Devinvci (don't tell "Tool-trickie" as he might have a fit . I rode a medium Sight w/70 stem and that felt about spot on for me as well. I am 5'10", so size up on Troy if you are a tweener'.
    Ride On!

  47. #247
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by jgusta View Post
    I rode them both this past week. Troy for 4 days and Sight c for ony 1hr. Both bikes are fun and have their pros/cons. Overall, the Sight c was by far the better pedaller, more snappy, responsive with excellent small bump and handled chatter quite well. Downside, was that it would use all the travel with anything 1-2 feet, harsh bottom to frame with anything near 3 feet or more with with 30% sag max, lots of tire pressure. So, the Sight felt more of a better XC/trail bike to me where you plan to keep the wheels on the ground more or not doing any hits on your ride. The geometry was absolutely dialed for pedalling with 140 fork on steep inclines, declines and flat out pedalling.

    Troy, the far better jumper and better descender due to feeling a little more stoutly and progressive nature of shock/suspension. Only downside to Troy it was a sluggish climber at times, didn't react to changes in speed quickly and felt I needed an adj. fork on it (mine had 150 Pike) to be comfortable on climbs, unless I was out of the saddle and had to use lockout to minimize all the bobbing. Excellent small bump and great trail compliancy and cush in first half of travel and rapidly became more and more progressive towards the end, which made it feel a little harsh at high speeds and tall sensation at times despite it's low static BB height. Excellent jumper, easily as well as my Banshee Rune, if not better due to inherent progression in suspension. And bike did well maintaining and hauling like a "freight train" on sections where didn't have to change speed. Both good bikes and a lot of fun and perhaps even more supple than my +6" Rune w/reservoir high volumed shock in the chatter at slower speeds especially.

    FWIW, I rode a large Troy with 60 stem and felt almost identical to my medium Rune w/50 stem and found the ETT to be at least 1.3" off from published numbers on Devinvci (don't tell "Tool-trickie" as he might have a fit . I rode a medium Sight w/70 stem and that felt about spot on for me as well. I am 5'10", so size up on Troy if you are a tweener'.

    Thanks so much for your input. I think a lot of us on this forum have been waiting to hear from someone with some actual saddle time on both. What spec of the Sight did you ride? Pricewise, the Troy XP would fall between the 7.2 and 7.15 Sight Carbon. Ride on indeed.

  48. #248
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,646
    Thanks for the ride impressions jgusta. That review makes me lean towards the Sight C for my purposes. The fact that it's lighter for about the same price doesn't hurt.

    So did it have the Revelation? Or the Fox 32 or 34 ?
    I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  49. #249
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    Quote Originally Posted by tokarsky268 View Post
    Thanks so much for your input. I think a lot of us on this forum have been waiting to hear from someone with some actual saddle time on both. What spec of the Sight did you ride? Pricewise, the Troy XP would fall between the 7.2 and 7.15 Sight Carbon. Ride on indeed.
    I was on 7.1 Sight Carbon build. Nice enough, brakes were a touch too grabby for me though with 4 piston Elixir Trail 7's (prefer Shimano and currently use 820 Saints). If going Sight Carbon, I would probably just get the frameset (comes with stealth reverb post, headset for $2870) and build from there with Pike set to 140 travel with different wheels, brakes, 1x10 to save $$, even though 1x11 is quite nice.

    The Troy rental I had, was just the XP kit w/Alu frame (only 1/2 lb heavier than carbon). Kind of shoddy kit, but gets the job done with wide bars (780), shorter stem (60) and 150 Pike for the descents was quite nice. The crankset absolutely sucked (SRAM 2x10) that would lose chains periodically and even busted a new chain before returning bike from mangling a rivet on chainring while pedalling. The stock wheels were quite heavy as well, which more than likely contributed to sluggish feeling when changing speed quickly (fast to slow to fast). Other than that it was a pretty functional kit at nice pricepoint especiallly when getting the carbon XP. I rode a fully dialed Troy Carbon build as well from shop (only around park and town) that had a 160 Pike and bike felt a little lighter than XP, but geometry was off with pretty tall end, too slack back end for seated pedalling (would much prefer Pike 160-130 for climbing/pedalling). Whereas the Sight's seated pedalling is pretty much spot on and immediately felt good with 140 up front. Ultimately, they felt and handled like two totally different bikes to me for different purposes. Sight for XC/trail riding on mixed terrain, techy surfaces if you will. Troy for all out aggro triail/AM riding on pretty much anything with hits, drops, super chunk, jump lines, etc.
    Ride On!

  50. #250
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,938
    Quote Originally Posted by KRob View Post
    Thanks for the ride impressions jgusta. That review makes me lean towards the Sight C for my purposes. The fact that it's lighter for about the same price doesn't hurt.

    So did it have the Revelation? Or the Fox 32 or 34 ?
    Yep, that is what I was thinking as well. Sight felt like it just wanted to pedal anything, regardless of how steep up or down and in between. The 7.1 has a Revalation on it which feels good with rest of bike and will get the job done for XC/trail riding. If riding more aggressive and hit some jumps, hits, then would Pike would be more ideal either in 150 for little slacker set-up or spaced to 140 with use of 26"/150 spring for stock geometry which feels quite balanced. Think this bike would be a much better match for Chili than Troy for sure. Sight still felt really supple to me in a more snappy manner than Troy.
    Ride On!

  51. #251
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    136

    Troy and Sight Carbon quick comparison

    So we received our first shipment of Sight Carbon Frames and two completes yesterday. I have only ridden them in the parking lot due to the fact that the Sight Carbons are sold out to dealers so we could not get a demo. Here is my comparison between a Medium Sight Carbon 7.2 and a medium Carbon Troy XP. Keep in mind there is a huge difference in the fork on these two builds. The Troy has a pike 150mm and the Sight a revelation 140mm. I have ridden a Troy and last years Sight substantially.
    Turning, the first thing I noticed about the sight 7.2 is the very low top tube. This in combination with the shorter fork made the bike rip in the turns. I think in the turning aspect I give the nod to the sight due to the low top tube. I do think its exaggerated with the shorter fork. With the same fork as the Troy the Sight will still turn better due to the low top tube letting the rider move the bike more.

    Pedaling efficiency, the Sight had a very good seated pedal platform and I think the Troy and the Sight are equal in this area. Once I stood and attacked, it was a different story. The Troy accelerated very quickly but the Sight lagged behind in this area. It was very noticeable and the only way I could narrow the gap was to put the shock on the sight in climb mode. So the nod goes to the Devinci in this area. This is the same as with the alloy sight. I have no review on the descending capability cause I only had asphalt to climb.

    Sizing, both bikes measured the same with a top tube length of 22 78" when measured from the center of the top tube to the center of the seat tube while parallel to the floor. The sight has a 65mm stem and the Devinci a 50mm. The Troy felt much larger (surprise). I wish I could tell you why. The Sight had an almost flat bar with very little backsweep and the Troy a more normal 1" rise bar but with more backsweep. It was very noticeable. The Sight from last year also felt small in the Medium.

    I just thought I would give a quick comparison between the two models with no bias. We sell them both and I want to move them all to new homes.

  52. #252
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by FlavC View Post
    Ah yes. Sorry, I forgot this was the internet, and that anything that gets posted enough times becomes truth. It doesn't matter that the stated method of measurement will generate different numbers, depending on a unknown reference point of "Raised saddle height for proper pedaling position". Or that tootrikky states in one post that " I did try to measure the TT but nothing conclusive came of that due to it being a virtual measurement. ", then states matter of factly that this method is how Devinci did it. How does he know this? Did Devinci say this? If so, that would put to rest a hell of a lot of arguing on this thread.

    I just wanted to possibly help others by giving my impression of the two sizes I demo'd and how they differed from what I expected based on the published geo numbers.

    I will now bow out of any further internet discussion involving math and/or logic.
    Good Grief.... Panties get bunched much? I wasn't directing anything at you. In fact, you do clearly understand the BASIC geometric concept that others were struggling with...namely, that the traditional effective top tube measurement to the middle of the seat post doesn't work on a bike like this with a seat tube axis that doesn't line up with the bb.

    Bring your toys back and keep playing, dude.

  53. #253
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketmatt17 View Post
    So we received our first shipment of Sight Carbon Frames and two completes yesterday. I have only ridden them in the parking lot due to the fact that the Sight Carbons are sold out to dealers so we could not get a demo. Here is my comparison between a Medium Sight Carbon 7.2 and a medium Carbon Troy XP. Keep in mind there is a huge difference in the fork on these two builds. The Troy has a pike 150mm and the Sight a revelation 140mm. I have ridden a Troy and last years Sight substantially.
    Turning, the first thing I noticed about the sight 7.2 is the very low top tube. This in combination with the shorter fork made the bike rip in the turns. I think in the turning aspect I give the nod to the sight due to the low top tube. I do think its exaggerated with the shorter fork. With the same fork as the Troy the Sight will still turn better due to the low top tube letting the rider move the bike more.

    Pedaling efficiency, the Sight had a very good seated pedal platform and I think the Troy and the Sight are equal in this area. Once I stood and attacked, it was a different story. The Troy accelerated very quickly but the Sight lagged behind in this area. It was very noticeable and the only way I could narrow the gap was to put the shock on the sight in climb mode. So the nod goes to the Devinci in this area. This is the same as with the alloy sight. I have no review on the descending capability cause I only had asphalt to climb.

    Sizing, both bikes measured the same with a top tube length of 22 78" when measured from the center of the top tube to the center of the seat tube while parallel to the floor. The sight has a 65mm stem and the Devinci a 50mm. The Troy felt much larger (surprise). I wish I could tell you why. The Sight had an almost flat bar with very little backsweep and the Troy a more normal 1" rise bar but with more backsweep. It was very noticeable. The Sight from last year also felt small in the Medium.

    I just thought I would give a quick comparison between the two models with no bias. We sell them both and I want to move them all to new homes.
    Thanks for the comparison!

    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  54. #254
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,646
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketmatt17 View Post
    So we received our first shipment of Sight Carbon Frames and two completes yesterday. I have only ridden them in the parking lot due to the fact that the Sight Carbons are sold out to dealers so we could not get a demo. Here is my comparison between a Medium Sight Carbon 7.2 and a medium Carbon Troy XP. Keep in mind there is a huge difference in the fork on these two builds. The Troy has a pike 150mm and the Sight a revelation 140mm. I have ridden a Troy and last years Sight substantially.
    Turning, the first thing I noticed about the sight 7.2 is the very low top tube. This in combination with the shorter fork made the bike rip in the turns. I think in the turning aspect I give the nod to the sight due to the low top tube. I do think its exaggerated with the shorter fork. With the same fork as the Troy the Sight will still turn better due to the low top tube letting the rider move the bike more.

    Pedaling efficiency, the Sight had a very good seated pedal platform and I think the Troy and the Sight are equal in this area. Once I stood and attacked, it was a different story. The Troy accelerated very quickly but the Sight lagged behind in this area. It was very noticeable and the only way I could narrow the gap was to put the shock on the sight in climb mode. So the nod goes to the Devinci in this area. This is the same as with the alloy sight. I have no review on the descending capability cause I only had asphalt to climb.

    Sizing, both bikes measured the same with a top tube length of 22 78" when measured from the center of the top tube to the center of the seat tube while parallel to the floor. The sight has a 65mm stem and the Devinci a 50mm. The Troy felt much larger (surprise). I wish I could tell you why. The Sight had an almost flat bar with very little backsweep and the Troy a more normal 1" rise bar but with more backsweep. It was very noticeable. The Sight from last year also felt small in the Medium.

    I just thought I would give a quick comparison between the two models with no bias. We sell them both and I want to move them all to new homes.
    Thanks for the comparison. My standing and hammering experience more closely matches yours. I felt like the Troy really responded well in this situation. The Sight was no slouch though and I was surprised at how well it responded to standing sprints for a HL design.

    The sight I ride did have the Pike so I didn't notice much difference with regards to stiffness , tracking, and turning (Troy had a 34 150).
    I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth...
    Isaiah 58:14

    www.stuckinthespokes.com

  55. #255
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    839
    The alloy frames are welded in the great white North while the carbon frames are made overseas. I wonder if the geometries differ between the two. Not on paper, but in the real world.

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

  56. #256
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    57
    After reading all of your great reviews I am about to back up a new troy XP. Only problem is there are none in stock where I live and the shop has to order it for me. From what I have read most of you are average height and above. I am 5'7" and trying to decide between medium and small? Planning on running a 50mm stem and 750mm bars if that helps. Thanks in advance

  57. #257
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jazzanova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,817

    Re: 2014 Devinci Troy quick review

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonL View Post
    After reading all of your great reviews I am about to back up a new troy XP. Only problem is there are none in stock where I live and the shop has to order it for me. From what I have read most of you are average height and above. I am 5'7" and trying to decide between medium and small? Planning on running a 50mm stem and 750mm bars if that helps. Thanks in advance
    A medium for sure.

  58. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation: downhill502's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonL View Post
    After reading all of your great reviews I am about to back up a new troy XP. Only problem is there are none in stock where I live and the shop has to order it for me. From what I have read most of you are average height and above. I am 5'7" and trying to decide between medium and small? Planning on running a 50mm stem and 750mm bars if that helps. Thanks in advance
    You really should try and find a demo first. I am 5'8" and have a large. I was on a medium Mojo HD with your same cockpit setup and felt the top tube/reach was to cramped. The large Troy is just a little more reach and feels great. Its a large amount of money to spend without really testing whats out there

  59. #259
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pulpwoody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    428
    extra medium

  60. #260
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    202
    will put it to the test tomorrow, freshly built
    im pleased with how it turned out
    i demoed the troy at interbike, dont understand what the bike reviewers were complaining about. relatively brief demo, but long enough to know that it has everything that im looking for.
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  61. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by incubus View Post
    The alloy frames are welded in the great white North while the carbon frames are made overseas. I wonder if the geometries differ between the two. Not on paper, but in the real world.

    Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

    Great question. I did a quick measurement from the image, same as the I did earlier in the thread. The Medium XP on the devinci site seems to be all the same angles/sizing as the carbon. They match quite well. The seatpost might be off a half a degree or so, it's impossible to really measure it super accurately.

    An interesting note looking at the XP. It ships with a 25mm setback post. A richey V2 I believe it is. Though the description only says v2 post. Wonder why it gets a setback post and none of the other models do? Because no decent droppers have a setback option?


    Here is an overlay shot of the two frames sized fairly closely. Aligned at the bottom bracket as always
    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-troy-xp-sl-overlay.jpg

  62. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888

    New Bars

    I just received my new bars in tonight. The stockers bent on me... Gave me a good excuse to upgrade to RF SIXC! The stock bars weighed in at 335 grams and my SIXC weigh 220 grams. That to me is a lot of weight in just bars! Looking forward to trying them out.

    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-p4pb10567115.jpg

    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  63. #263
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    579
    Nice. How do you like the Easton Grips? 30 or 33mm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Carraig042 View Post
    I just received my new bars in tonight. The stockers bent on me... Gave me a good excuse to upgrade to RF SIXC! The stock bars weighed in at 335 grams and my SIXC weigh 220 grams. That to me is a lot of weight in just bars! Looking forward to trying them out.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	p4pb10567115.jpg 
Views:	916 
Size:	154.6 KB 
ID:	866516

    -Brett
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
    - Arthur C. Clarke

  64. #264
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    Quote Originally Posted by seleniak View Post
    Nice. How do you like the Easton Grips? 30 or 33mm?
    I think they are the 33mm ones, I will have to check tomorrow. I like them a lot, I am coming off of the Odi Rogue grips. These are a nice median between thinner grips like the ruffian style and the rogues. The have nice grip and have a special grip area for your fingers. We will see how long they last in comparison to Odi grips which are hard to beat.

    Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  65. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    174

    Seatpost Geometry

    For anyone who cares I've put together an excel file here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...crbblings.xlsx

    Which will let you play around with Virtual Top tube vs Horizontal top tube measures vs Saddle height.

    I've populated the chart with details from a Medium troy as an example.

    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-geometry-scribblings.jpg
    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-geometry-scribblings2.jpg

  66. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation: doismellbacon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,332
    Very cool

  67. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    136
    [QUOTE]The alloy frames are welded in the great white North while the carbon frames are made overseas. I wonder if the geometries differ between the two. Not on paper, but in the real world. /QUOTE]

    The actual seat tube angle is different on the alloy vs carbon. This is why they use a small layback seat post on the alloy. The angle is different by 2 degrees.

    [QUOTE]After reading all of your great reviews I am about to back up a new troy XP. Only problem is there are none in stock where I live and the shop has to order it for me. From what I have read most of you are average height and above. I am 5'7" and trying to decide between medium and small? Planning on running a 50mm stem and 750mm bars if that helps. Thanks in advance/QUOTE]

    Which model are you looking for. I would lean more towards a medium for you but the best way to tell is a demo. Where are you located, we have demos in S,M,L. Im 6'1" and ride a large. I would say I have most models in stock but I sold 3 today alone. The orders on the carbon are out to March and that order is almost sold out

  68. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    174

    Re: 2014 Devinci Troy quick review

    Quote Originally Posted by rocketmatt17 View Post
    The actual seat tube angle is different on the alloy vs carbon. This is why they use a small layback seat post on the alloy. The angle is different by 2 degrees.
    Do you have a source for this seatpost angle info?
    Last edited by dberndt; 02-03-2014 at 10:07 AM.

  69. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    136
    [QUOTE]Do you have a source for this seatpost angle info?/QUOTE]

    I measured them with an angle finder in the shop. Its not the most accurate but its close

  70. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketmatt17 View Post
    I have no review on the descending capability cause I only had asphalt to climb.

    In your experience, how does the 2013 Sight compare to the Troy in descending capability?

    How do you think their descending would compare if the Sight had a 150mm Pike?

    Thanks for your feedback on these bikes. I'm yet another person trying to decide between these two.

  71. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    Demoed the Troy in both large and medium today and got to take the sight carbon 7.2 for a spin around the parking lot. First of all, a bit about me. I am 5'9 and 3/4 tall with a 72 inch wingspan( I suspect from years of swimming). I am coming from a xc setup with a 22 1/8 ETT with a 130 mm stem. The I felt more comfortable initially on the large. However, this was because I was more stretched out/hunched over like my xc rig, which I didn't think was a good thing. I was more upright on the medium, but not uncomfortably so. I just felt in the bike. I found myself noticing the length on the large and forgetting about the size on the medium. I'm guessing if you forget about the size, that probably tells you you're on the right size. I rode the entire ride in descend with no thoughts of reaching for a lever. I literally forgot all about the levers until the end of the ride, when I said " wait, what setting was my shock on?" The suspension was just that good. I've never ridden a DW link or VPP before to compare. The pike was awesome. The bike is gorgeous with the red black color scheme and the bare carbon fiber. I'd prefer matte as opposed to glossy, but hey we can't always have exactly what we want I suppose.
    The sight is just as much a looker as the Troy, in fact
    possibly more so. The top tube is super low slung and the whole package is awesome looking. In my parking lot comparison, the Troy felt more plush and felt like it had more travel in the front( which it does) and rear. The sight maybe felt a touch more nimble, but not enough to make me choose a revelation and a monarch over a pike and factory rp23 Kashima.

    Either way you can't go wrong. Its a bummer that I couldn't take the sight out, but I can understand why( it was the only 7.2 the owner was getting). By the way, the medium Sight felt roughly the same size as the Troy. I took a video of a walk around close up if both bikes. Hopefully I can't figure out how to post it on this forum. They are both amazing and regardless which one you get, you'll be getting a great bike.

    If I could plug Billy Goat Bikes in Asheville, NC. The shop owner, Matt, has been so helpful throughout my whole time putting this bike together. I can't say enough about how helpful and professional he and his guys were. If you're thinking of either Norco or Devinci, give him a shout.

  72. #272
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,766
    Quote Originally Posted by tokarsky268 View Post
    Demoed the Troy in both large and medium today and got to take the sight carbon 7.2 for a spin around the parking lot.
    Very lucky to be able to test both of those bikes side by side.

    Everything I've read about the Sight Carbon is positive, but it seems to get similar critisims as the Troy with the SL build kit.

    Summarized best as: "both bikes are awesome, but both need the Pike to shine"

    Considering your can get the Troy Carbon with the XP build kit that includes the Monarch and Pike and spend the extra $200 you saved over the Sight for a dropper post, I'd be tempted to go with the Troy.

    The Sight Carbon is far sexier, though.
    GIS/GPS Pro using ArcFM for Utility Mapping - Always willing to connect with other MTBers in the industry.

  73. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    163
    Tokarsky — "I am coming from a xc setup with a 22 1/8 ETT with a 130 mm stem. The I felt more comfortable initially on the large. However, this was because I was more stretched out/hunched over like my xc rig, which I didn't think was a good thing. I was more upright on the medium, but not uncomfortably so. I just felt in the bike. I found myself noticing the length on the large and forgetting about the size on the medium. I'm guessing if you forget about the size, that probably tells you you're on the right size. "

    I'd have to agree. Getting used to "trail" geo and fit is a little of a learning curve. I'm also coming from an XC background and bike, though my setup is not super racy and stretched out, but definitely in the XC ballpark. I demoed a medium Troy and felt a tiny bit cramped, but I'm a little taller, and honestly I hardly ride any bikes besides my own. I think just getting on any new ride is always gonna feel a little off. Also, I did absolutely nothing besides adjusting the saddle height to personalize the ride. And the cramped feeling was really minor. An extra 10mm stem would probably fix it. Or a large. Hard to say.

    On another note:
    Has anyone seen the Sight 7 1.5 in person? On the Norco website it looks like that frame is a little different than the rest of the Sights. Top tube is less swoopy. I don't know if it's just a mistake or photo editing issue, but it definitely stands out. I'd be pretty surprised though if that one model is different — especially without being called out as an product manager type build — think EVO (spesh) or BC Edition (Rocky)

  74. #274
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    320
    Maybe i missed this . but if i order a troy carbon with xp build does it have the Rock shox or fox shock? I am very close to putting in an order for this bike.

  75. #275
    Formerly PaintPeelinPbody
    Reputation: PHeller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,766
    Quote Originally Posted by aarontriton View Post
    Maybe i missed this . but if i order a troy carbon with xp build does it have the Rock shox or fox shock? I am very close to putting in an order for this bike.
    RS Monarch RT
    GIS/GPS Pro using ArcFM for Utility Mapping - Always willing to connect with other MTBers in the industry.

  76. #276
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by PHeller View Post
    RS Monarch RT
    Thanks I wasnt sure when you look at how the carbon frame only is with the fox ctd kashima.

  77. #277
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    Quote Originally Posted by PHeller View Post
    RS Monarch RT
    No, you get the Fox shock with Kashima coating with the carbon frame and XP build kit.

    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  78. #278
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    Incorrect. I just brought one home today. Are you ordering it off of fanatikbike, bc their carbon XP does say monarch. However, at least with the initial run of troys, they come with the parts kit and the frame( with the shock mounted on it). The carbon frame comes with the fox even if you ordered it with the XP kit. Give Matt a call at Billy Goat. He's sold a bunch and is a big Devinci dealer.

  79. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    320

    Re: 2014 Devinci Troy quick review

    Very nice. Thanks

    Sent from my Z750C using Tapatalk
    2014 Devinci Carbon Troy Xp
    2015 Mongoose Vinson Fat bike

  80. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    320
    I am ordering it from my local dealer. I have been in contact with devinci and my dealer is getting it coming soon. Another question does the frame have the bottom bracket bearings pressed in or are they shipped with the build kit

    Sent from my Z750C using Tapatalk
    2014 Devinci Carbon Troy Xp
    2015 Mongoose Vinson Fat bike

  81. #281
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by PHeller View Post
    Very lucky to be able to test both of those bikes side by side.

    Everything I've read about the Sight Carbon is positive, but it seems to get similar critisims as the Troy with the SL build kit.

    Summarized best as: "both bikes are awesome, but both need the Pike to shine"

    Considering your can get the Troy Carbon with the XP build kit that includes the Monarch and Pike and spend the extra $200 you saved over the Sight for a dropper post, I'd be tempted to go with the Troy.

    The Sight Carbon is far sexier, though.
    I was also lucky in that they had a customers kona process to look at. I was curious about it given all the hype around it. It does have a low slung top tube, possibly even more than the sight( which is quite low by itself). Just a slightly longer and lower top tube with a short stem. To be fair, I only rode the sight around the parking lot. While it felt marginally more nimble than the Troy, the Troy felt like it was more solid, and therefore more confidence inspiring. No surprise here, the Pike Kashima RP23 combo was much smoother and plush than the revelation and low level monarch. For what you get, the Troy is the better buy. It's also pretty low slung, just not quite as much as the other two.

    From a sex appeal perspective, I generally like the more understated look that has really cool stuff when you spend a minute to look at it. The Sight is more overtly sexy, but the Troy pushes my buttons a little more. Plus, I'm a sucker for raw carbon fiber weave.

  82. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    320
    Has any one converted the jalco xm 420 rims on the xp build to tubeless? I won't have the extra coin for new wheel set for awhile

    Sent from my Z750C using Tapatalk
    2014 Devinci Carbon Troy Xp
    2015 Mongoose Vinson Fat bike

  83. #283
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    Quote Originally Posted by aarontriton View Post
    Has any one converted the jalco xm 420 rims on the xp build to tubeless? I won't have the extra coin for new wheel set for awhile

    Sent from my Z750C using Tapatalk
    I was wondering the same. I would like to hear reports on this as well.

    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  84. #284
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    In speaking with Matt, he said you could, but I don't know if he's actually done it. Matt?

  85. #285
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by aarontriton View Post
    Has any one converted the jalco xm 420 rims on the xp build to tubeless? I won't have the extra coin for new wheel set for awhile

    Sent from my Z750C using Tapatalk
    I'll wait for this one too. Mine gets delivered in a week and a half and I'd like to know if I need to save for a new wheelset. Either way, I'll be trying to do just that. Results in two weeks regardless of the answers here. I'd just like to know how much of a challenge it will be to get them to seal correctly.

  86. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by rocketmatt17 View Post
    The actual seat tube angle is different on the alloy vs carbon. This is why they use a small layback seat post on the alloy. The angle is different by 2 degrees.
    I'm getting an alloy. How much of a difference in handling will it be if I install a dropper post? No layback there, so it looks like I will have to compensate with a longer stem. What is the stock length? The website only says the Easton ea50 in 31.8 diameter and not the stem length. I'd rather not get a longer stem if it is already 90 or 100mm.

  87. #287
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    320
    I think I read somewhere that a large comes with a 70 mm stem

    Sent from my Z750C using Tapatalk
    2014 Devinci Carbon Troy Xp
    2015 Mongoose Vinson Fat bike

  88. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    In speaking with Matt about it a while ago, he said that one challenge to the tubeless thing is the Hans Dampfs. Don't remember exactly why, but it sounds like with those tires you need to use them for a bit before you can reliably set them up. I'm guessing they need to stretch a little bit.

  89. #289
    gravity fighter
    Reputation: Mikecito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    546
    2014 Devinci Troy quick review-img_20140209_131030_241.jpg

    My quick review. Awesome.

  90. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    320
    Nice ride. Looks sweet!

    Sent from my Z750C using Tapatalk
    2014 Devinci Carbon Troy Xp
    2015 Mongoose Vinson Fat bike

  91. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    Took my new Troy Carbon XP out for its maiden voyage yesterday. Climbed really well. Unfortunately, my fitness didn't allow me to make the seemingly endless climb. I never actually saw the apex of the hill because my chain snapped with no supplies to fix it, thus ending my day. Quite the buzzkill for a first ride. I'm assuming its just bad luck, but has anyone else had chain break issues with split pivot bikes? I haven't heard anything.
    For what its worth, the bike is BEAUTIFUL, pedals firmly even with the ctd in descend, and is really confidence inspiring on the descents. I'll upload pictures soon.

  92. #292
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    I have broken several Shimano chains, get a Kmc or Sram chain. I have yet to break either one of them. I do not think it has anything to do with it being a split pivot, because one was on my Troy and the other was on a different bike.

    Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  93. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikecito View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_20140209_131030_241.jpg 
Views:	3705 
Size:	237.5 KB 
ID:	868554

    My quick review. Awesome.
    Care to expand a little? Pros? Cons? Have an XP on order myself. The only thing that has me concerned is the Avid brakes.

  94. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    320
    I have a Troy carbon xp on order. My current bike has avid elixer 1 and there OK. I figure I will run the bike with the avids s then eventually up grade to some shimano Slx or xt's to me the first up grade on the xp build will most likely be the wheel set.

    Sent from my Z750C using Tapatalk
    2014 Devinci Carbon Troy Xp
    2015 Mongoose Vinson Fat bike

  95. #295
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    The elixer 3s on my Troy are OK. They stop you pretty good, do not feel the best, but will run them until they start giving problems.

    Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

  96. #296
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    507
    2 rides on the Troy the brakes seem ok too. Then again I'm coming from V brakes on my ancient rig. Save up for some Zees when the time comes.

  97. #297
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    13
    I see most of you are buying full bikes and not only frames and building the bukes with the parts you like, and further more, even when you buy full bike, you do not upgrade or change anything in the moment of the buying. Any reason for this? like, if you do not like the brakes, why not upgrade them when you order the bike from your bike shop?

    About brakes - try at the shop, at friends, where ever you can the Avid X0 trail - AWESOME!!!

  98. #298
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    320
    Most shops my area are small and the want avid brakes back as much as I do. They will not credit . Plus I can buy the brakes I want on line . I will not buy any avid brakes anytime soon.

    Sent from my Z750C using Tapatalk
    2014 Devinci Carbon Troy Xp
    2015 Mongoose Vinson Fat bike

  99. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by babi View Post
    I see most of you are buying full bikes and not only frames and building the bukes with the parts you like, and further more, even when you buy full bike, you do not upgrade or change anything in the moment of the buying. Any reason for this? like, if you do not like the brakes, why not upgrade them when you order the bike from your bike shop?
    That's precisely what I did. I told the guy at the LBS that I'll buy the bike as long as it didn't come with Avid brakes. So SLX at cost it is since the Avids come packaged with the build kit from Devinci.

    I'm buying a prebuilt bike instead of a frame only and parts because that's the only way I can afford a fully finished bike like the Troy that comes with a Pike.

  100. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carraig042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    888
    Quote Originally Posted by babi View Post
    I see most of you are buying full bikes and not only frames and building the bukes with the parts you like, and further more, even when you buy full bike, you do not upgrade or change anything in the moment of the buying. Any reason for this? like, if you do not like the brakes, why not upgrade them when you order the bike from your bike shop?

    About brakes - try at the shop, at friends, where ever you can the Avid X0 trail - AWESOME!!!
    I do it because I do not have enough money to buy all the parts I want off hand. I buy a good decent spec and slowly upgrade as money comes in or parts tear up. I9 wheels do not come cheap and neither do Hope brakes...

    -Brett
    Visit my Youtube channel for lots of DH and XC videos!
    2014 Devinci Troy Carbon
    2011 Spec Demo 8
    GoPro HD Hero

Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. devinci troy?
    By RosedaleReaper in forum Devinci
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 03-14-2016, 05:55 AM
  2. 2014 Troy Lee Designs Full face helmets?
    By CaRaBeeN in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-13-2014, 11:34 AM
  3. Troy Lee Designs 5205 Wrist Guard Review
    By kauffee in forum Apparel and Protection
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-27-2013, 08:13 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-29-2011, 01:02 AM
  5. Review - Devinci Dexter
    By emvp84 in forum Canadian Bikes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 10:09 AM

Members who have read this thread: 47

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •