Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    103

    Hardtail to BMC Trailfox???

    So there's a pretty slammin deal for a BMC trailfox 1 and 2 on Jenson right now and it's got me wondering if it's finally time to go full suspension. Right now I'm sitting on a 19" 99 Schwinn Homegrown pro that I have slowly upgraded over the years. It has a Rockshox reba team fork, 819 tubeless on hope bulb hubs, hope mini brakes. I got a shorter stem which helped make the cockpit less sprawled out (I'm about 6'). Everything else is largely the same original stuff.

    I've come to really enjoy my bike as it is but living in an area that has some really rocky terrain, I often really want some rear suspension travel. If I got the frame, I'd try to use as much of my current bike's components as possible. I'd like to know
    if the front dehraileur on my bike is compatible as the add says, "high clamp 35.0mm front derailleur"... whatever that means. I may additionally need a larger seat post as my current seat post is the skinnier of the two that seem to be on the market. One of my other many questions is, how stupid am I for recycling all of my old old parts?

    additionally, there's the 1.0 and the 2.0. From what recall, the only difference is one has a better shock. Is it really worth an extra $300 +?? ... I do like the green color though!

    I also may need a new BB as my original may not fit.

    by doing this, would I go from having a relatively light weight bike to a 30+ lb beast? If the answer is, kinda, would it be worth it?

    As far as sizing goes, would I go w/the 19"?? I don't know what inseam has to do with it, but I have a 32" inseam.

    Thanks for your help!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,255
    front derailleur: 35mm is the clamp diameter, 'high clamp' is a conventional derailleur, not a 'top swing.' Most modern derailleurs are 35mm with shims to get down to other sizes.

    seatpost: there are a LOT more than 2 common sizes. Jenson's Zion (house brand) post fits, and is pretty nice for $5. IMO if you are going to spend more than that, get a thomson.

    Definitely not stupid for reusing parts. Most of what I have on my superstroke is cannibalized from other bikes. I doubt you'll be very happy with a reba on that frame though. Some rebas went up to 115mm travel - the very low end of what I'd consider on a bike like that, some years it only went to 100 unless it was U-turn. If it were me, I'd be looking for 140... and IMO pike is the winner in that travel range. That would mean getting a new front hub though (not a bad upgrade, you really want a T/A in that travel range).


    The suspension will change the ride so much, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't directly notice the weight difference, which will probably be smaller than you think. My XC bike is a hare over 20#, superstroke is around 36, between the suspension and the steering geo I hardly notice the weight differences when I go back and forth.

    If the only difference between those is the shock, I'd go with the cheaper; I don't know that it's the only difference though. My superstroke bobs, it needs the pro-pedal on most of the time (but the RP2 it came with is the 'light' PP setting, which takes care of it). I'm leery of DT shocks - seems like weight was the main focus of their design. I wouldn't pay more for a DT.

    sizing... can't answer that.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    103
    I doubt you'll be very happy with a reba on that frame though
    But that's been my latest upgrade... I read a review where BMC's fully built trailfox 01 has a ride height adjustable fork that goes from 140 down to 100mm for climbing. I have the team that can be adjusted from 85 to 115. In order to get all of the benifits out of the trailfox, if I had to upgrade the fork, that would be another 4-5 hundred beans I would have to spend. You don't think I could get away with my reba for a year or so before upgrading? Would it throw off the geometry?

    ... my hope front hub has that axle conversion as well.... I dunno if that would work with the pike...

    I've been pretty satisfied with my current bike for the longest time that I've been kinda outta the loop with improvements they've made with bikes over the years. Has it really gotten to the point where even a 30+ lb bike can feel light when climbing?

    I'll have to call up Jenson and ask them about the differences between the frames. Some reviews I've read bashed the Ario 2.2, but having never owned a full suspension, I might not know the difference.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,255
    too short a fork isn't going to void the warranty or anything, I just said I doubt you'll be happy with it. Lower A/C than the frame was designed for makes the head angle steeper which speeds up handling and reduces stability. That's great on a climb when you are going really slow - that's when you'd use the 100mm setting on the travel adjust fork. When the trail turns down a slacker, slower steering, more stable ride is what you [generally] want so you can take advantage of the suspension - you can get that with a longer fork.

    Your reba will work, it's just at the low end of travel - I'd guess you'd enjoy something with a bit more. Pike's maxle is compatible with any 20mm t/a, such as your hope hub, so good news there. I'd definitely get the cheaper frame and put the extra money into a fork fund.

    for me at least it isn't that the bike feels lighter than it is, it's that there are so many other differences that I don't focus on the weight. IOW It doesn't feel like taking my XC bike and strapping 15# of weight to it. It's still a matter of horses for courses; I don't think I'd ever use the superstroke in an XC race no matter how rough it was (in my experience XC racing is primarily about how fast you can climb, and nothing I've ever ridden can touch my ARC in that respect). It's just fun/different to ride.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    103
    (I didn't see the two posts above prior to writing this)

    Thanks for the info. I should soo just drop the cash on that frame, but I doubt I'm gonna. I was hoping someone was going to say, DOOO it!!! and really convince me that it was worth it. But at the same time, I'm not, because 7 c notes is a good chunk of change. And to make it worth it, I'd need that extra 400 beans for another new fork.

    Just out of curiosity, any idea how much my bike weigh being full XT (from 99) with the 819 tubeless, hope bulb, hope monos, and easton XC stem, riser, and post???
    Last edited by SoobieNeil; 08-17-2008 at 07:25 AM.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Joules
    It's still a matter of horses for courses; I don't think I'd ever use the superstroke in an XC race no matter how rough it was (in my experience XC racing is primarily about how fast you can climb, and nothing I've ever ridden can touch my ARC in that respect). It's just fun/different to ride.
    good thing hes looking at trailfoxes and not superstrokes then!

    the trailfox would be perfect with a reba at 115mm.. probably even 100 is fine. everything that guy said was about superstrokes, not the trailfox you're looking at.

  7. #7
    Get your freak on!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,698
    The TrailFox 01 has the better rear shock (much better), but the main reason for the price difference is the 01 has a Carbon rear end, it saves just over 100grams while not taking away any strength or stiffness. If the difference in price is not great, I'd go the TrailFox 01.

    Here is one I bought and built for my farther a while ago.
    Attached Images Attached Images


  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by tomsmoto
    good thing hes looking at trailfoxes and not superstrokes then!

    the trailfox would be perfect with a reba at 115mm.. probably even 100 is fine. everything that guy said was about superstrokes, not the trailfox you're looking at.


    no, actually it's not. try learning to read.

    per jenson, about the trailfox: "BMC suggest a fork in the 110-140mm travel range to complement your new frame. "
    I doubt anyone would be happy with the geo at the low end of that, at least not anyone that knows anything about mountain biking.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    103
    Joules, I know you were referencing the Superstroke since it is another BMC product. Maybe Tomsmoto didn't get it. Eitherway, Thanks both of you for your input.

    bike_freak, that's one sexay bike! The dude I talked to at Jenson was quick to state his opinion that the 01 is easliy worth an extra $300 for a bike that didn't have anything extra other than a better shock. He did not know that the rear was made using carbon fiber.

  10. #10
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,519
    No moss...

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,905
    im just saying.. bmc says its fine to run the bike at 110mm-140mm.. so the reba at 115 puts you well in the clear. its not like its going to ride like ass because you're not running at the edge of the spec at 140. if you want to upgrade the fork later, hey great.. but you could ride it all day long just swapping your parts over.. you'd have a great spec'd bike that rides well within its intended range.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    103
    jeffw-13, looks pretty sweet. 30lbs is pretty lite for a 5" travel bike, right? The 7th pic down shows your crank and BB. Does the frame require a special BB and or cranks?

    you could ride it all day long just swapping your parts over
    that's what I was hoping.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,026
    what is the HT angle on those bikes even with the 5 inch or 5 inch plus forks? They look almost Cross Country like with steep head tube angles - is this accurate?

  14. #14
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,519
    Quote Originally Posted by SoobieNeil
    jeffw-13, looks pretty sweet. 30lbs is pretty lite for a 5" travel bike, right? The 7th pic down shows your crank and BB. Does the frame require a special BB and or cranks?


    that's what I was hoping.
    Not my bike. I just think it's sexy.
    No moss...

  15. #15
    banned
    Reputation: Jerk_Chicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    16,480
    I would stay away from BMC. They don't have a good rep in MTB, even here in the EU.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    103
    by reputation, do you mean with warranty claims or craftmenship/quality?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    I would stay away from BMC. They don't have a good rep in MTB, even here in the EU.
    I have had a TF02 now for a few months. My other bike is a '05 yeti 575 - so I have a pretty good yardstick to judge it by.

    The Trailfox 02 frame is definitely laterally stiffer than the Yeti and it is also a more
    efficient peddler. The handling is a bit different, the Yeti being a bit slower and more suited
    to fast down hill type riding. Having said that, the more I ride the TF the more I like it.

    Jason English won the Australian 24hr solo championships on a TF01, so this bike can
    certainly be raced XC if you want to.

    Overall, it's a great bike and very fast once you get to know it. I would also go for the TF01
    as the only complaint I have is with the rear shock. I'll be replacing the stock DT at some
    stage.

    cheers

    TCD

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,199
    Quote Originally Posted by MMcG
    what is the HT angle on those bikes even with the 5 inch or 5 inch plus forks? They look almost Cross Country like with steep head tube angles - is this accurate?
    It does look pretty steep for a 140mm bike...

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    103
    The head angle is 69 degrees according to BMC's website. ...dunno if that's steeper than usual.

    I'll be replacing the stock DT at some
    stage.
    You mean RockShox, right?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1

    Smile How does it ride?

    Quote Originally Posted by bike_freak
    The TrailFox 01 has the better rear shock (much better), but the main reason for the price difference is the 01 has a Carbon rear end, it saves just over 100grams while not taking away any strength or stiffness. If the difference in price is not great, I'd go the TrailFox 01.

    Here is one I bought and built for my farther a while ago.
    Nice bike, are you running a Fox Talas fork? How does the bike ride at 140mm(5.5 inch) of travel? Or is it better offf with the 120mm ( 5 inch).

    Would you say it is a XC bike or a trail bike

    Some photos of the bike look way steep with the head angle, your bike in the photo looks ok. Do you know the HA for the 2007 model?

  21. #21
    Get your freak on!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,698
    Quote Originally Posted by chompychay
    Nice bike, are you running a Fox Talas fork? How does the bike ride at 140mm(5.5 inch) of travel? Or is it better offf with the 120mm ( 5 inch).

    Would you say it is a XC bike or a trail bike

    Some photos of the bike look way steep with the head angle, your bike in the photo looks ok. Do you know the HA for the 2007 model?
    The fork is actually the Trail Tune (terralogic), I think it is a 2006 fork? The fork has 130mm of travel and I believe it suits the frame really well. As for recommended travel of the fork, i'd say it depends on what you want out of the bike, 115-120 is ideal for XC/Enduro riding and the bike is quick at the length, a 140mm fork works well but will make standover an issue in some cases and maybe the bike wander a bit on the climbs. I personally think a 120mm length fork is perfect for this frame.

    I'm not sure on the head angle of this bike, I'm pretty sure with a 140mm fork it would be roughly 69 degree, not super slack but this is a all day endurance bike after all and it pedals very well.


  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: thing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerk_Chicken
    I would stay away from BMC. They don't have a good rep in MTB, even here in the EU.

    I don't think you know what your talking about I have an 02 and I love it.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    127
    I went from a Specialized Rockhopper to a BMC TF02 and love it!

    No bob while seated, minimal while standing. An absolute blast to ride.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    103
    I ended up going with a brand new complete Rocky Mountain. When I went to a store that carried the TF02, the stand over height was really high. I forget if it was a small or medium sized frame. I'm 5'11" so I normally ride a medium. Standing flat footed, I had almost no room between the top tube and the family jewels. I ended up taking demoing a Fuji Reveal 2.0 and a Specialized FSR Elite. Both bikes were considerably heavier than my Schwinn so when it came to climbing, I was much more winded when I got to the top of some hills. Downhills were a LOT more fun however. I wasn't able to get the Reveal setup correctly but absolulty loved the new XT stuff that is on it. As well as the seemingly bottomless suspension. The FSR rode harsher but climbed like a mountain goat and had even better components than the Reveal (X0 is money!). But was also an extra $1.5k more... Too rich for me. So aside from the stand over height, I realized that buying the frame just wouldn't be the same experience as having a whole new bike w/all updated equipment. Sure it would have been about half what I spent on the new bike, but it would have been like putting an old transmission and interior in a new car. Plus I think the extra coin I spent got me lighter stuff (about 2 lbs lighter) than I would have been had I gone with the BMC frame and to me, weight really does matter. I don't want this to discourage anyone from going with the BMC. Aside from the stand over height, it felt right... at least in the parking lot. I do think you should at least sit on one before you buy a frame.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    14
    Hmm .. is this bike with the carbon rear triangle a safe bike then ? Wouldn't the carbon fail over time ??

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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