View Poll Results: Are you interested in a sub 30lb, 6" travel bicycle?

Voters
82. You may not vote on this poll
  • NO: It's stupid!

    13 15.85%
  • YES: Ummm...just yes, I don't have a logical reason so your going to have to come up with one

    32 39.02%
  • NO: A 6" travel bike should be Park & Resort capable

    21 25.61%
  • YES: I like to spend lots of money on new parts...er, I'm a POSEUR

    19 23.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 105
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202

    Cool-blue Rhythm What's the point of a Sub 30#, 6" travel (AM/LT FR) Bike?!

    I know what I'm looking for! A little pedal efficiency, room for a coil, 1.5HT, ISCG mounts, and roughly 66.5-67* HA. Oh, and proprietary suspension design...F' all that old school crap.

    What is a sub 30lb, 6" travel frame good for?

    Here's a little poll to make things interesting

    DISCUSS!
    Last edited by Mtn. Biker123; 11-14-2009 at 09:58 AM.

  2. #2
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,334
    As the owner of a Yeti 575 I'm obligated to vote 'yes' here.

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Can you even run a coil on a 575? ISCG mounts? What are the purpose of these? Hammerschmidt? Now that is a heavy piece of equipment. Chumba is talking custom tuned CCDB! The 575 with carbon stays is pretty much race ready with zero options for a burlier build.

    When I talked to Alan on the phone he's wanting this bike to support a Totem. Would you consider throwing a Totem on your 575?

    BTW...I'm still winning
    Last edited by Mtn. Biker123; 11-13-2009 at 07:36 AM.

  4. #4
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    25,357
    I think it's stupid, but a sub 30lb 6" bike will ALWAYS sell. It might be a marginal ride that is harsh over the choppy stuff due to the air shock/fork and it might get raped in the gnarly terrain where the strength/lack of flex just aren't on par with other bikes, but again, it will ALWAYS sell. Light weight ALWAYS sells in the mtb world, whether it's a good idea or not.

    I built my old 6 pack "light" at one point where it was right around 30lbs, RP3, All-Mountain 1, 185mm front rotor, eggbeaters, etc. It was the dumbest build I ever had. Sure, it was lighter, but the 5lbs lighter weight really didn't make any difference in my ability to climb or ride the bike, and the lack of good pedal platform/strength, lack of decent suspension travel, steeper angles, lack of braking power, and so on just limited it's ability too much. I've ridden many 5spots as well as the DW link version, and one of those with a 36 vanilla/lyric would own the "light pack" that I built.

    I also had a foes FXR built up fairly light. That was also dumb, just way too half-ass in terms of XC and DH ability. Crappy shock + real low BB + short geometry = pretty bad for everything.

    I don't think many bikes work well with air shocks in the rear. The only things I've tried that seem to be decent are the DW link bikes, although the Giant Maestro's that I used to sell were fairly decent as well. Otherwise the air shock on the rear end just never works that well on a long travel bike in my experience. Every year someone claims that fox has "fixed" the DHX air, and every year someone claims some new air shock is "just like a coil", but I've yet to feel that on anything except what I mentioned above. I'd rather have 5" of quality coil travel than 6" of RP23 travel, every day and sunday. With the coil you'll never build a light bike though. I'd also like a front fork that has a coil spring + oil height adjustment like the old (and some current) marzocchis. I'd like decently sophisticated damping circuts on both ends (something that marzocchi has slacked off on for a very long time) and decent sized brakes. Once you put decent parts on a bike like a 200mm front rotor, decently strong wheels (450-500g rims), an adequately wide bar (even if it's carbon), saddle that you can actually sit on, pedals that don't break the first time they encounter a solid object (which means not Crank Brothers), decent volume tires that don't have paper-thin sidewalls, there aren't a whole lot of places to save weight.
    Last edited by Jayem; 11-13-2009 at 08:20 AM.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    That's not my question, though. I can respect the way the market is now, but isn't ultimately about making you customers happy? There is too much overlap in the existing models. Break the Mold!!!

  6. #6
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    25,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    That's not my question, though. I can respect the way the market is now, but isn't ultimately about making you customers happy? There is too much overlap in the existing models. Break the Mold!!!
    The educated public that really knows what they want is relatively small. If Turner listened to every discussion about what riders "want" they'd be making all kinds of crap that wouldn't sell, like DS/Park bikes, dw highlines, dw nitrous, 13" bottom brackets with the RFX, all sorts of crazy stuff. I think the reality in the market is different than what a few riders want, no matter how knowledgable and skilled those riders are.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  7. #7
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,565
    I'm a poseur, so I voted appropriately.
    Chumba allready has a six inch travel sub 30 pound AM bike, so why create another one?
    Make it burly, 1.5 head tube, 66 to 67 degree HA, 13.76 BB height, ISCG tabs, and sell it stock with a coil shock. Frankly, I don't care what proprietary suspension system they rip off, make it a damn horst-link for all I care.
    And I don't care too much, seeing as I allready have a bike just like this except for the 1.5 head tube.
    ****

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    The educated public that really knows what they want is relatively small. If Turner listened to every discussion about what riders "want" they'd be making all kinds of crap that wouldn't sell, like DS/Park bikes, dw highlines, dw nitrous, 13" bottom brackets with the RFX, all sorts of crazy stuff. I think the reality in the market is different than what a few riders want, no matter how knowledgable and skilled those riders are.

    Well, lets educate them. Chumba is not a boutique brand. Chumba could grab some of the market of those that can no longer afford a Turner. Rene nailed it, even if he is a poseur....I'd still love to ride with him

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Well, lets educate them. Chumba is not a boutique brand. Chumba could grab some of the market of those that can no longer afford a Turner. Rene nailed it, even if he is a poseur....I'd still love to ride with him

    Chumba had a chance at that market with the Evo. The Evo just needed a lower top tube and it would have sold like hot cakes imo. The top tube on the Evo was quite high and the interface with the down tubes gave the illusion of a super high bb height (which it wasn't) and many prospective buyers were scared off by this.

    I owned a Turner Six Pack and Evo back to back. Both were horst links, but the Evo pedaled better and felt plusher. The suspension on the Evo was dialed and you could put a coil shock on if you wanted, but the frame was already fairly heavy with an air shock.

    Politics aside, I am looking forward to checking out the new Evo.

    As far as sub 30 pounds goes, not sure and it depends on many factors. A lighter rider can get away with a lighter bike and weight can be saved if you go with a full on xtr/xo build, seat with titanium rails, dh carbon bar..etc. I think 31 pounds is about as light as you can get if you are a normal sized rider that wants one bike to do it all.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Metalheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    122
    considering my 5" trail bike weighs in >30 lbs (and thats with the air shock) its all academic to me...

    oh I've a mate with a Lapierre Spicy 914 (160mm travel) which must be sub 30. he likes it.

  11. #11
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Can someone inform me why anyone who concerns themselves with "grams" would be interested in a 6" bicycle?

  12. #12
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    I think the reality in the market is different than what a few riders want, no matter how knowledgable and skilled those riders are.
    In the end, though, isn't the market partially driven by these same people?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Can someone inform me why anyone who concerns themselves with "grams" would be interested in a 6" bicycle?
    A lot of people apparently. The current trend is lighter with more travel, which appeals to a broader range of potential buyers. The new Nomad, and Titus El Guapo frames are now lighter. The Knolly Delerium T is one pound lighter than the earlier version. I imagine the new RFX will be fairly light as well.
    Last edited by ronny; 11-14-2009 at 06:55 AM.

  14. #14
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    I think it's stupid, but a sub 30lb 6" bike will ALWAYS sell.
    bingo

    fortunately for the marketeers, such a bike will likely not result in too much negative publicity IMHO. Why? Because the people seeking such a bike are most likely roadbiking MTBers who will do no harm to any bike nor test any bike's limits, six inch travel or otherwise. Those of you out there, in general, who "need" a 6 inch bike will be wise enough to know that a 30 lb 6" bike is an effing joke for your needs. - but for the lycra clad crowd enticed by the latest glossy pages, it will be just fine.

  15. #15
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade
    I'm a poseur
    I agree with Renegade

  16. #16
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Can someone inform me why anyone who concerns themselves with "grams" would be interested in a 6" bicycle?
    Because a lighter bike, no matter the travel, can be more fun. Maybe not always, but for some trails/people/riding styles they can.

    Different strokes for different folks.

    The weight wouldn't bother me, but since the geometry isn't what I'd call aggressive, the decision to not use a 1.5 ID headtube (and it's superior adjustability) would be a deal breaker for me.

    YMMV.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  17. #17
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    Those of you out there, in general, who "need" a 6 inch bike will be wise enough to know that a 30 lb 6" bike is an effing joke for your needs...
    What does "need" have to do with it? Does anybody really "need" to spend $5000 (or 3000 or 1000) on a mountain bike?

    I say bring on the sub 30lb 6" bikes...but for fvcks sake, get the geometry right .
    Extreme stationary biker.

  18. #18
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Is it that the pushers "pushing" this, or is it a genuine trend. I think the former. Everyone that I have talked to after going WW ended up buying more durable goods. Is that the plan or to have them continue to destroy the lighter (more expensive) stuff. A lighter bike is rarely more fun, just a little easier to get up the hill (unless you truly enjoy climbing ). Often times a more supple suspension will get you up and over things better too! Pointed down weight is your ally.

  19. #19
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,248
    Quote Originally Posted by geolover
    What does "need" have to do with it? Does anybody really "need" to spend $5000 (or 3000 or 1000) on a mountain bike?

    I say bring on the sub 30lb 6" bikes...but for fvcks sake, get the geometry right .
    where did i say that lack of "need" prevents people from buying what they want? people should buy what they want and can afford, whether or not they "need" it. the correct interpretation from a non ruh-tard would be that somebody that "needs" 6 inch travel is genuinely a gnar rider and as such, a 30 lb 6 inch bike will not suit his (or her) needs accordingly

  20. #20
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by geolover
    Because a lighter bike, no matter the travel, can be more fun. Maybe not always, but for some trails/people/riding styles they can.

    Different strokes for different folks.

    The weight wouldn't bother me, but since the geometry isn't what I'd call aggressive, the decision to not use a 1.5 ID headtube (and it's superior adjustability) would be a deal breaker for me.

    YMMV.
    If lighter is more fun, why not go with a 5" travel bike that is set up for your riding preference. After all, it's lighter! A 6" travel bike should not be "light". What could you possibly do on a 6" WW bike vs a little burlier and well set up 5" bike. The difference is the industry has gotten people who shouldn't be on them on them to sell more bikes.

  21. #21
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    If lighter is more fun, why not go with a 5" travel bike that is set up for your riding preference. After all, it's lighter! A 6" travel bike should not be "light". What could you possibly do on a 6" WW bike vs a little burlier and well set up 5" bike. The difference is the industry has gotten people who shouldn't be on them on them to sell more bikes.
    I tend to agree with you, but not many light 5" bikes with 66 degree HA out there either. Personally, I'd like a light 4" travel bike with aggressive geometry...maybe even a 29er, but that is a different thread . Banshee has the 5" spitfire coming out, which looks great. Chumba has the XCL with the optional slacker linkage which also looks great. If chumba would have had that linkage available when I owned an XCL I might still have it.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  22. #22
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Apparently there won't be any 6" travel bikes carrying that kind of geo either!

    My 5.5 RFX has roughly a 66.5-67* and it has been and continues to be a great all round bike. I wouldn't mind shedding a little weight and adding a bit more "anti-sagpedal-bobsquat" (trying to be politically correct) to my next trail bike.
    Last edited by Mtn. Biker123; 11-13-2009 at 09:31 PM.

  23. #23
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Apparently there won't be any 6" travel bikes carrying that kind of geo either!

    My 5.5 RFX has roughly a 66.5-67* and it has been and continues to be a great all round bike. I wouldn't mind shedding a little weight and adding a bit more "anti-sag" (trying to be politically correct) to my next trail bike.
    I think you 2 geniuses should start a company together since you clearly have all the answers. I am sure if you did, NOBODY would complain about any of your design or business decisions

  24. #24
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by FoShizzle
    I think you 2 geniuses should start a company together since you clearly have all the answers. I am sure if you did, NOBODY would complain about any of your design or business decisions
    Would you vote already?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  25. #25
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Would you vote already?
    my bad...i am an American after all...brb

    for me, NO interest...if i were a company selling product I am afraid I may consider it but i would try to not call it an AM bike at least

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: swoodbrn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    922
    You seem to be asking the wrong question - "what's the value of a 6" (ie, all moutain) bike that's lighter than the rest?" You maybe should be asking, "what's the value of a lightish (ie, XC) bike that has more travel than the rest?" If you're not racing, and it pedals well, or, at least, you're able to pedal it well, enough, to get up most any mountain, than why not add some sproing to make the descent even more of a bomb...especially for those of us riding into our gray years.

    I say that without knowledge of the durability of those sub-30 6-inchers, as I'm 180lbs and ride a 32lb Reign that has been bomb-proof. Will I be busting frame pieces on the new ones?

  27. #27
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Would you vote already?
    Poor grammar on the T-shirt. Should read I would have farted.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  28. #28
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202

    What was the question to your answer?

    You actually read what was on the shirt?
    Last edited by Mtn. Biker123; 11-13-2009 at 09:46 PM.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    I think it is a trend made popular by those such as writers in magazines like mba, where anything weighing over 30lbs is often considered a boat anchor. Bike manufacturers know that light weight and 6" is what people want right now.

  30. #30
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Apparently there won't be any 6" travel bikes carrying that kind of geo either!

    My 5.5 RFX has roughly a 66.5-67* and it has been and continues to be a great all round bike. I wouldn't mind shedding a little weight and adding a bit more "anti-sagpedal-bobsquat" (trying to be politically correct) to my next trail bike.
    Yup, my 5.5/6.5 Supermoto has roughly a 65.5-66* HA (depending on which fork I'm using) and I fawking love it! Frame weight is about 8 pounds with float R and wouldn't mind shedding a bit of weight myself...although, I probably would have a rough time getting rid of the SuMo right now.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  31. #31
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by geolover
    Poor grammar on the T-shirt. Should read I would have farted.


    I'm reminded of a ride where we got caught behind this hot chick on a 29'er. I exclaimed to my other two riding buddies "did you see that chick" as we passed. One gives a "Yeeeahhh" and the other guy goes "yeah what's she doing riding a niner"?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  32. #32
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    I'm reminded of a ride where we got caught behind this hot chick on a 29'er. I exclaimed to my other two riding buddies "did you see that chick" as we passed. One gives a "Yeeeahhh" and the other guy goes "yeah what's she doing riding a niner"?
    Sorry, I thought it was a picture of Fo.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    87
    Just to fan the flames, the 2010 Giant Reign XO sits somewhere around 28lb with 167mm of travel.

  34. #34
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Doesn't mean it's right. As I said, you can be a leader or a follower. Apparently, there are a lot more people that like to stare a their bikes for 360 days out of the year than what I thought. For those that ride more frequently than that, even Fo knows that it's just wrong.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    I think it's stupid, but a sub 30lb 6" bike will ALWAYS sell. It might be a marginal ride that is harsh over the choppy stuff due to the air shock/fork and it might get raped in the gnarly terrain where the strength/lack of flex just aren't on par with other bikes, but again, it will ALWAYS sell. Light weight ALWAYS sells in the mtb world, whether it's a good idea or not.

    I built my old 6 pack "light" at one point where it was right around 30lbs, RP3, All-Mountain 1, 185mm front rotor, eggbeaters, etc. It was the dumbest build I ever had. Sure, it was lighter, but the 5lbs lighter weight really didn't make any difference in my ability to climb or ride the bike, and the lack of good pedal platform/strength, lack of decent suspension travel, steeper angles, lack of braking power, and so on just limited it's ability too much. I've ridden many 5spots as well as the DW link version, and one of those with a 36 vanilla/lyric would own the "light pack" that I built.

    I also had a foes FXR built up fairly light. That was also dumb, just way too half-ass in terms of XC and DH ability. Crappy shock + real low BB + short geometry = pretty bad for everything.

    I don't think many bikes work well with air shocks in the rear. The only things I've tried that seem to be decent are the DW link bikes, although the Giant Maestro's that I used to sell were fairly decent as well. Otherwise the air shock on the rear end just never works that well on a long travel bike in my experience. Every year someone claims that fox has "fixed" the DHX air, and every year someone claims some new air shock is "just like a coil", but I've yet to feel that on anything except what I mentioned above. I'd rather have 5" of quality coil travel than 6" of RP23 travel, every day and sunday. With the coil you'll never build a light bike though. I'd also like a front fork that has a coil spring + oil height adjustment like the old (and some current) marzocchis. I'd like decently sophisticated damping circuts on both ends (something that marzocchi has slacked off on for a very long time) and decent sized brakes. Once you put decent parts on a bike like a 200mm front rotor, decently strong wheels (450-500g rims), an adequately wide bar (even if it's carbon), saddle that you can actually sit on, pedals that don't break the first time they encounter a solid object (which means not Crank Brothers), decent volume tires that don't have paper-thin sidewalls, there aren't a whole lot of places to save weight.

    I don't know a damn thing about MTB tech, but fully agree with this. My bike needs to be strong and reliable, and when you trade weight for strength something will eventually give.

    If weight really matters, I can lose 2-5lbs off my ass with a little effort.

    Make a 6" AM bike strong and shoot for something in the 30-34lbs range.

    R

  36. #36
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Well, either the WW guys are too embarrassed or do not have a strong enough argument to support their vote. The more "vocal" community are the ones dominating the discussion. It seems like the Corporate folks have gotten a lot more people convinced that they can hang on a trail that demands a 6" steed than actually have the skills. Often times those are the guys who are slowing me down in the tech sections because they can't handle it and find themselves walking these sections

    Unfortunately, these guys appear to be the ones with the money. Enter MTBR (Marketing To Brainwashed Retarts), and suddenly the market is flooded with useless bikes!!!

  37. #37
    discombobulated SuperModerator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,217
    Vote tally edited down -1 for the third category.
    User voted twice.
    Affects % for that category only
    CDT

  38. #38
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    I don't see it on my end Tony? It still shows that I voted twice. FWIW, this VERY interesting and totally opposite of what I expected. Sure explains a lot with what is going on in the market. Thanks for participating everyone!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    I don't see it on my end Tony? It still shows that I voted twice. FWIW, this VERY interesting and totally opposite of what I expected. Sure explains a lot with what is going on in the market. Thanks for participating everyone!
    it's hardly a poll that reflects the market. the options should be just yes or no. even then it's less than 100 votes, hardly indicitive of what the market will be. post the poll in the all mountain and freeride threads. that' d be a little better

  40. #40
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    it's hardly a poll that reflects the market. the options should be just yes or no. even then it's less than 100 votes, hardly indicitive of what the market will be. post the poll in the all mountain and freeride threads. that' d be a little better
    I did not do this for the public, this is for me. I have found it to be very interesting. The options are what I want them to be and have actually cleared a few things up. Don't be confused. This for my benefit, not yours. How do you think the FR'ers would go? I think it's more interesting right where it is

  41. #41
    discombobulated SuperModerator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    I don't see it on my end Tony? It still shows that I voted twice. FWIW, this VERY interesting and totally opposite of what I expected. Sure explains a lot with what is going on in the market. Thanks for participating everyone!
    Your name seems indelible. Your vote was removed. Currently reads 11 votes, but 12 names.
    CDT

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gotdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,314

    Good job! what he said

    Quote Originally Posted by swoodbrn
    You seem to be asking the wrong question - "what's the value of a 6" (ie, all moutain) bike that's lighter than the rest?" You maybe should be asking, "what's the value of a lightish (ie, XC) bike that has more travel than the rest?" If you're not racing, and it pedals well, or, at least, you're able to pedal it well, enough, to get up most any mountain, than why not add some sproing to make the descent even more of a bomb...
    i'd be a potential customer... travel ≠ "gnar"

    some of us like technical climbing and rocky descending w/o airtime. i don't need a "burly" bike, but a light-ish, slack-ish, bike that i could TALAS the front end for climbing/descending has my attention.

    (and no i didn't vote in the poll since i have a logical reason and am not a poseur).
    -
    .And following our will and wind . . .
    . . .We'll ride the spiral to the end
    and may just go where no one's been.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by xc2006
    Just to fan the flames, the 2010 Giant Reign XO sits somewhere around 28lb with 167mm of travel.
    I'd buy one if it was cheaper.

    Light weight = priceless. There are things that are durable and heavy, which suck but never die, things that are light and suckass, which suck but explode (ala RSYS), and then there are durable and light things, which are pricey but awesome.

    Bottom line is this: more travel = more fun!
    Slacker HA = more bomber
    Lighter weight = faster pedalling

    There's a reason even DH pros are concerned, to some degree, with weight.

    Do we all actually need 28lb 6" bikes? Fk no. But might we want them? Yeah!

    Is weight ever going to go away as a consumer concern? No way. Because on some level it DOES affect performance, and that trickles down to people thinking it can help them too, the same way no one NEEDS full suspension, it just makes it easier to be a crappy rider and look good.

    Should I justify why I want the bike you're discussing? nah, I'll just buy it - but honestly, I want more than 6" of travel and slack geometry because I want to ride some scary **** and grow my skills, since I'm not good enough to do it on a hardtail. i want light weight because I like to ride up, down, and flat, and I'm small - if the front end weighs 10 lbs, i won't be lifting it on the fly. Bottom line for me: more travel = more fun; less weight = more energy to ride longer. And who doesn't want that?

    Perhaps, in the words of Fo, we should all HTFU - but not everyone's got mad skills.
    Quote Originally Posted by sickspeed16
    Your not all mountain unless your runnin' crushed dew cans..
    '12 Scalpel 29er Carbon 1
    '13 SuperSix EVO Red Racing

  44. #44
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Well put..you hit the nail on the head. Right now, at this moment, there is not a sub 30# am/lt fr bike that the average rider could take to a FR park and not beat the sh!t out of or even come close to doing what a 6" bike could do (on those trails) with some beefier components and chassis...But there are plenty of 5" models. So, stop selling the public on "what could be", right now. What is, is! As such, put the current models to better use by providing a little more versatility in the existing line. If your new design is as efficient as you say, then you have room to accommodate a true LT FR capable bike. You don't need to create something new and market a "perceived" need. Experienced riders are telling you what they need. You are coming from a place of want. That's not what I am arguing. Now, next year they may incorporate some sort of NASA space technology and produce a 5lb, 10" travel "do all" bike that has lateral strength and incorporates any HA/BB height and rides on a cushion of air...hell, it may even pedal itself,,,, but that's not here and now.

  45. #45
    CSM
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    92
    Personally, I like how your poll options for the light 6" travel bike attempt to make anyone who would cast votes in those categories as uneducated, or a poser.

    To me it seems that the OP is a 6" travel rider, trying to prove that only a certain "class" of rider ought to use 6" of travel. Only real "hardcore" riders willing to pay a weight penalty of 5lbs need to look into 6" bikes, otherwise keep you WW arse in the 5" area.

    Do I think loads of carbon fiber is better suited to 5" trailbikes? Yes. Do I think a sub 30lb AM bike is a bad idea? No. There are lots of lightweight components that are still very durable.

    Ironically, I am the opposite here. I bought a 5" Titus, built it up very solid, so it weighs more than most anybody else's. Traded the 5" fork for a Talas 36RC2, and now I'm buying a Guapo. As somebody else mentioned above, the easiest place to shave 5 (even 10lbs) is from your midsection or rear end. To address the original question, I think that a lightweight 6" trail bike is very well suited to the riding conditions here in the frontrange of CO. Wicked elevation gain, with fast choppy descents. You can swing a lot of it with 5", but 1" of extra cush with minimal weight penalty ain't a bad thing at all. If you want to take a 6" bike up to chairlift country, better keep it burly.
    Last edited by ChemEBiker; 11-15-2009 at 10:33 AM.

  46. #46
    Samsonite Tester
    Reputation: Evel Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    I know what I'm looking for! A little pedal efficiency, room for a coil, 1.5HT, ISCG mounts, and roughly 66.5-67* HA. Oh, and proprietary suspension design...F' all that old school crap.

    What is a sub 30lb, 6" travel frame good for?

    Here's a little poll to make things interesting

    DISCUSS!
    Size has everything to do with this. A 145# 5'5" rider would be on a small frame, use lighter wheels and tires. Everything from ti seat rails , XC cranks, carbon bars and post could be used for the LT/FR/AM bike with no problems. This would be easy to get the magic 6" travel under 30# mtb.

    Lets do it with a 6'2" 220# rider. You get a large or Xlarge frame, wider rims with meatier rubber, cro-mo seat rails, alloy bars and post. Just in those parts you are looking at +5# over what the small rider has. Now your whole magic 6" sub 30# mtb is next to impossible.
    Yeah I gotta question. You got any excuses tonight Roy ? -Antonio Tarver

    There is room for it all, just ride what you like to on what you like to...that's freeriding. -rbn14



  47. #47
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Evel Knievel
    Size has everything to do with this. A 145# 5'5" rider would be on a small frame, use lighter wheels and tires. Everything from ti seat rails , XC cranks, carbon bars and post could be used for the LT/FR/AM bike with no problems. This would be easy to get the magic 6" travel under 30# mtb.

    Lets do it with a 6'2" 220# rider. You get a large or Xlarge frame, wider rims with meatier rubber, cro-mo seat rails, alloy bars and post. Just in those parts you are looking at +5# over what the small rider has. Now your whole magic 6" sub 30# mtb is next to impossible.
    We should be working with averages here..your argument remains unsupported.

  48. #48
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by ChemEBiker
    Personally, I like how your poll options for the light 6" travel bike attempt to make anyone who would cast votes in those categories as uneducated, or a poser.

    To me it seems that the OP is a 6" travel rider, trying to prove that only a certain "class" of rider ought to use 6" of travel. Only real "hardcore" riders willing to pay a weight penalty of 5lbs need to look into 6" bikes, otherwise keep you WW arse in the 5" area.

    Do I think loads of carbon fiber is better suited to 5" trailbikes? Yes. Do I think a sub 30lb AM bike is a bad idea? No. There are lots of lightweight components that are still very durable.

    Ironically, I am the opposite here. I bought a 5" Titus, built it up very solid, so it weighs more than most anybody else's. Traded the 5" fork for a Talas 36RC2, and now I'm buying a Guapo. As somebody else mentioned above, the easiest place to shave 5 (even 10lbs) is from your midsection or rear end. To address the original question, I think that a lightweight 6" trail bike is very well suited to the riding conditions here in the frontrange of CO. Wicked elevation gain, with fast choppy descents. You can swing a lot of it with 5", but 1" of extra cush with minimal weight penalty ain't a bad thing at all. If you want to take a 6" bike up to chairlift country, better keep it burly.
    Do you know anyone that rides a sub 30#, 6" am/lt fr trail bike in CO? If so, how fun is it to ride with them?

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    I don't quite understand what the fuss is about. It is VERY possible to build a fairly durable 6" trail bike around 30 or just under thirty pounds. The El Guapo frame is very light for how strong it is. The 2010 model is even 180 grams lighter and said to be just as strong. Fox and RS offer STRONG 6" forks that are under 5 pounds! The frame and fork is half the battle. There are light and strong wheel sets available. The same can be said for every other component that goes on a mountain bike.

    I disagree with some of the posters stating that there are only a few places to save weight. There are dozens of places to save weight on a bike build without sacrificing a lot of strength. If you want to spend the money, there are tons of options.

    I have always gone with durability over weight but the options have really opened up these days to go lighter without sacrificing strength.

  50. #50
    CSM
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Do you know anyone that rides a sub 30#, 6" am/lt fr trail bike in CO? If so, how fun is it to ride with them?
    Yes, it isn't uncommon, and it is fun, given the proper venue. As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't advocate taking a sub 30# up to the ski resorts, and having somebody with me at that point wouldn't necessarily make things less enjoyable. It comes down to riding ability at that point.

    For many of the Front Range Trails, even trails in the Rockies, a sub 30# 6" bike is perfectly acceptable, if not very desirable.

    Where do you ride where more travel for less weight, with minimal strength penalty, is a bad thing?

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •