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

Voters
82. This poll is closed
  • 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 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 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
    5,384
    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
    26,411
    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
    26,411
    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
    8,567
    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
    17,250
    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
    17,250
    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
    17,250
    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
    17,250
    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
    17,250
    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
    935
    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
    3,219
    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
    3,219
    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?

  51. #51
    Samsonite Tester
    Reputation: Evel Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    We should be working with averages here..your argument remains unsupported.
    Sorry to throw a monkey wrench in the gears. But I have to stay with my arguement. Size matters.

    So a manufacturer uses light wheels and rubber to make the 30# mark with the large size. The reliabillity for light freeride will only be comprimised in the large sizes not the nearly as much in the small sizes. example a 250# rider jumps to a 3g landing. The effective weight the wheels need to support is 750#. A 150# rider on the same jump would only put 450# of pressure on the wheels. Same bike, same jump and you get 300# of big difference in reliabillity.
    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



  52. #52
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    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.

    Yeah, build up a blingy Chumba

    First off , no offense to Alan, but people who are looking at Chumba's are looking for value at a reasonable price point. That said, very few people who prefer bling can actually afford it. Let's face it, just because you can get something doesn't mean you will. If this design does succeed, there surely won't be too many sub 30# bikes built up. Not that people won't buy it, because it's been hyped up as a sub 30# am/lt fr,. But is that really how we as consumers want to support the market? Put something useful out there.

  53. #53
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Evel Knievel
    Sorry to throw a monkey wrench in the gears. But I have to stay with my arguement. Size matters.

    So a manufacturer uses light wheels and rubber to make the 30# mark with the large size. The reliabillity for light freeride will only be comprimised in the large sizes not the nearly as much in the small sizes. example a 250# rider jumps to a 3g landing. The effective weight the wheels need to support is 750#. A 150# rider on the same jump would only put 450# of pressure on the wheels. Same bike, same jump and you get 300# of big difference in reliabillity.
    It would be extremely difficult for Chumba to build a sub 30# am/lt fr frame with a 1.5 HT, ISCG mounts, zero carbon, structural/lateral integrity. All I'm saying is that these are some of the things that I would look for. Simply for the versatility. If this frame comes with these prerequisites ( for me )and you guys can build sub 30# bike go for it.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495

    It is still about averages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evel Knievel
    Sorry to throw a monkey wrench in the gears. But I have to stay with my arguement. Size matters.

    So a manufacturer uses light wheels and rubber to make the 30# mark with the large size. The reliabillity for light freeride will only be comprimised in the large sizes not the nearly as much in the small sizes. example a 250# rider jumps to a 3g landing. The effective weight the wheels need to support is 750#. A 150# rider on the same jump would only put 450# of pressure on the wheels. Same bike, same jump and you get 300# of big difference in reliabillity.

    The average mountain biker is well under two hundred pounds. Averages matter. I have heard the average is around 170-180 pounds. From what I have seen in Alberta and BC, the average weight would be right around this.

    The bottom line is if you are a bigger rider, riding pretty hard, then get a burlier wheelset. Lets say your mountain bike weighs 29lbs with a regular or lightish wheelset. A heavy duty set of wheels will make your bike around that 31-32 pound range. Two sets of wheels or even just tires makes a big difference.

    With that said, there are fairly light wheel sets that can handle a heavier rider. DT swiss 5.1 rims with Hope hubs etc are very durable.

    The whole, "I am over 200lbs, so I have to have a 36lb bike for two foot drops doesn't hold water in my book". I am 200 pounds plus with gear and have come to learn that unless you are full on freeriding, a heavy duty build is not necessary.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Yeah, build up a blingy Chumba

    First off , no offense to Alan, but people who are looking at Chumba's are looking for value at a reasonable price point. That said, very few people who prefer bling can actually afford it. Let's face it, just because you can get something doesn't mean you will. If this design does succeed, there surely won't be too many sub 30# bikes built up. Not that people won't buy it, because it's been hyped up as a sub 30# am/lt fr,. But is that really how we as consumers want to support the market? Put something useful out there.
    My point is that it is possible to build a durable 30lb or just under thirty pound 6" trail bike. Frame weights on bikes like the SC Nomad and Titus El Guapo have made it possible to do this. Does this mean that sub 30lb 6" bikes will be the norm. No, and I never said this.

    I bought an Evo with no budget in mind. I wanted to try something different and the Evo fit the bill in this department.

    It is not just Chumba pushing the light weight trail bike right now. Most companies have jumped on this band wagon. The ads reads the same across the board these days. "Ride single track and hit the Whistler bike park in the same day." "Light enough for xc but strong enough to hit the drops." "Can be built up as a 28 pound xc machine or 38 pounds for full on forays into freeriding". Same ****, different pile.

    Nothing new going on here.

  56. #56
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    My point is that it is possible to build a durable 30lb or just under thirty pound 6" trail bike. Frame weights on bikes like the SC Nomad and Titus El Guapo have made it possible to do this. Does this mean that sub 30lb 6" bikes will be the norm. No, and I never said this.

    I bought an Evo with no budget in mind. I wanted to try something different and the Evo fit the bill in this department.

    It is not just Chumba pushing the light weight trail bike right now. Most companies have jumped on this band wagon. The ads reads the same across the board these days. "Ride single track and hit the Whistler bike park in the same day." "Light enough for xc but strong enough to hit the drops." "Can be built up as a 28 pound xc machine or 38 pounds for full on forays into freeriding". Same ****, different pile.

    Nothing new going on here.
    I know Chumba is one of many. Unfortunately I have a hard enough time keeping up with this thread!

    Ok..since it is not the norm and averages do count why not make it more versatile for the guys that still Freeride? I know it's cliche, but I still do pedal up (many miles and mucho elevation) and hit pretty big sh!t on the way up and down. Don't "pedal" (excuse the pun) to the guys that have all of the money and sacrifice a group of core riders. The point in all this is that that it inflates prices all the way around, for the advantage of only a few...in the end.

  57. #57
    Seeeriously easy Livin
    Reputation: Flystagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,864
    6" bikes are often marketed and purchased as "do everything bikes" So what is wrong with having a lighter set of wheels/tires and an air shock for xc days, then then a set of azonic outlaws or similar with dh tires and a coil shock for dh days. Those two changes alone could easilly swap a 6" bike between a 30 lb trailbike, and a 35 lb resort bike. The frame has almost nothing to do with it, although I personally would not buy a 6" bike with over a 67 degree hta, and would prefer a 1.5 ht and iscg mounts as well.

    Any 6" frame that want's to be successfull should be able to fill both of these rolls.

  58. #58
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Sure if it met all of the criteria of what I needed in a bike, I would by it. Regardless of marketing. Try and market a 1.5HT, ISCG mounted, slack "do all bike" as a potentially sub 30# trail bike. See what happens. Market it for what it is. Let the WW's build it up to their needs, but don't sacrifice a core group of riders. Believe it or not, I'm trying to help here. I'm saying that you guys counting the grams just aren't going to notice the additional weight of adding a little beef to the frame. Everyone is happy and even the noobs who eventually step it up will be glad we had this conversation. They will be able to convert an existing AM machine into a more aggro Big Mtn/Resort ride. Then they may want to purchase a light xc rig for extreme xc, or go bigger to the F5?

  59. #59
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Flystagg
    The frame has almost nothing to do with it, although I personally would not buy a 6" bike with over a 67 degree hta, and would prefer a 1.5 ht and iscg mounts as well.

    Any 6" frame that want's to be successfull should be able to fill both of these rolls.
    I'm pickin' up what you're layin' down .
    Extreme stationary biker.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    I know Chumba is one of many. Unfortunately I have a hard enough time keeping up with this thread!

    Ok..since it is not the norm and averages do count why not make it more versatile for the guys that still Freeride? I know it's cliche, but I still do pedal up (many miles and mucho elevation) and hit pretty big sh!t on the way up and down. Don't "pedal" (excuse the pun) to the guys that have all of the money and sacrifice a group of core riders. The point in all this is that that it inflates prices all the way around, for the advantage of only a few...in the end.

    I would think Chumba would make their new 6" frame versatile enough for some free riding. It would be foolish not to because this is the current trend. There are already several versatile 6" frames that can handle free riding. To name a few. Banshee Rune, Giant Reign, SC Nomad, Titus El Guapo, etc, etc. Chumba has to compete with these guys, so it would be wise to make the new Evo just as versatile.

  61. #61
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by geolover
    I'm pickin' up what you're layin' down .
    Amen...glad we can all agree. So, what's the point of shooting for a sub 30# am/lt fr again (as far as marketing)? Why not shoot for an agro lightweight trail bike with proper versatility. That's my point of this thread. Not whether it is possible. It doesn't make any sense. The problem is that if we keep voting for the emphasis being on lightweight, that's what we will get...geez!

  62. #62
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    So, what's the point of shooting for a sub 30# am/lt fr again (as far as marketing)? Why not shoot for an agro lightweight trail bike with proper versatility. That's my point of this thread.
    BTW, this bike is right at 30lbs...could be made lighter too with a little cash thrown at it.

    6", 1.5" HT, ISCG, and stiff.

    I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
    30lb el guapo.jpg
    Extreme stationary biker.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by geolover
    BTW, this bike is right at 30lbs...could be made lighter too with a little cash thrown at it.

    6", 1.5" HT, ISCG, and stiff.

    I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
    30lb el guapo.jpg
    And what your saying is 100% correct. That is a very capable bike at a very light weight.

  64. #64
    CSM
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by geolover
    BTW, this bike is right at 30lbs...could be made lighter too with a little cash thrown at it.

    6", 1.5" HT, ISCG, and stiff.

    I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
    30lb el guapo.jpg
    That's what I'm sayin', and that's what I'm shopping for right now

    @ OP, to me it seemed your topic's intent was to bash those who have legitimate reasons for a sub 30# 6" travel bike, I can now see that your intent seems to be one of concern that the market will gravitate towards superlight at the expense of durability. 30# 6" trailbikes like the Guapo in the picture can handle a hell of a lot, and as somebody mentioned, you can easily change it's purpose by swapping wheelsets, or rear shock for a day. Bottom line is that a versatile sub 30# 6" travel bike is sweet, if you can afford it.

    I don't think we have to worry about that anytime soon, people are going to find even more creative ways to push these bikes to the limits, and they industry will have to respond with lighter and stronger bikes, for their respective purpose. Hell, even if they start selling complete bikes with loads of quality WW parts, you can easily buy the bike take off the OEM, sell it at a profit, and replace with parts better suited to your style.
    Last edited by ChemEBiker; 11-15-2009 at 08:53 PM.

  65. #65
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by ChemEBiker

    Where do you ride where more travel for less weight, with minimal strength penalty, is a bad thing?
    Nowhere around here, and definitely NOT the way I ride. You and I might chose totally different lines on the very same trail. Being that I'm purchasing an AM/LT FR bike I want a bike that I can do 4000' days on and the very next day hit the lift line!!

    Balance! The EVO could be very well balanced, IMO.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Nowhere around here, and definitely NOT the way I ride. You and I might chose totally different lines on the very same trail. Being that I'm purchasing an AM/LT FR bike I want a bike that I can do 4000' days on and the very next day hit the lift line!!

    Balance! The EVO could be very well balanced, IMO.
    when do you get your demo evo?

  67. #67
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    when do you get your demo evo?
    Whenever Alan sends me a plane ticket. It won't happen. Alan is bit of a double talker (you probably knew that already ). I had a phone conversation and a few PM's back and forth. It likely won't amount to anything.


    At this point, I would only be interested if it had a decent build spec and the attributes that I have mentioned.

  68. #68
    locked - time out
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,391
    I can't ride a sub 30 # bike without breaking something.

  69. #69
    Double-metric mtb man
    Reputation: Psycho Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,483
    Well, there are several of these bikes already on the market...main issues are a) you need to build them right to make it work (esp. if you put FR in the mix) and b) durability can be a royal pain.

    I know Banshee make the Rune and several other companies have similar 30#, 6" travel bikes with the 1.5 HT, ISCG tabs and such....it is do-able. The main issue I can see, especially as a Clyde, is that durability will suffer. People see the AM / FR bit and they will thrash the bike...and a sub-30# ride will fail faster than a bike that is built heavier and right. I personally would rather invest a little more pedalling effort and a couple pounds more aluminum on a bike made for FR that can actually do AM, vs a Trail/AM bike that is claimed to do FR.
    As if four times wasn't enough-> Psycho Mike's 2013 Ride to Conquer Cancer Page

    Moran? Let your opinion be free -> F88me

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho Mike
    Well, there are several of these bikes already on the market...main issues are a) you need to build them right to make it work (esp. if you put FR in the mix) and b) durability can be a royal pain.

    I know Banshee make the Rune and several other companies have similar 30#, 6" travel bikes with the 1.5 HT, ISCG tabs and such....it is do-able. The main issue I can see, especially as a Clyde, is that durability will suffer. People see the AM / FR bit and they will thrash the bike...and a sub-30# ride will fail faster than a bike that is built heavier and right. I personally would rather invest a little more pedalling effort and a couple pounds more aluminum on a bike made for FR that can actually do AM, vs a Trail/AM bike that is claimed to do FR.
    I weigh 200 plus with gear and I know that a 30 pound build on a Rune or El Guapo would be durable for my riding. The 30 pound Guapo in this thread is a pretty capable build. The real problem is how much money does a guy want to spend to lighten things up. Having an extra wheelset can make a big difference and would allow a rider to have a 30 pound or sub 30 pound bike and would make the bike 32-35 pounds with a burlier wheelset. There are many factors involved.

    With that said, many people are e-posturing about how core they are with their riding. Yeah, I need a 36 pound bike am bike for all the 10 foot drops I do, when in reality most of these guys will be hitting two footers to tranny. The vast majority of riders are over-biked and I really wonder how many people on this thread would actually use these bikes for serious free riding. I'm not talking about four foot drops to a perfect tranny but big drops and resort riding.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho Mike
    Well, there are several of these bikes already on the market...main issues are a) you need to build them right to make it work (esp. if you put FR in the mix) and b) durability can be a royal pain.

    I know Banshee make the Rune and several other companies have similar 30#, 6" travel bikes with the 1.5 HT, ISCG tabs and such....it is do-able. The main issue I can see, especially as a Clyde, is that durability will suffer. People see the AM / FR bit and they will thrash the bike...and a sub-30# ride will fail faster than a bike that is built heavier and right. I personally would rather invest a little more pedalling effort and a couple pounds more aluminum on a bike made for FR that can actually do AM, vs a Trail/AM bike that is claimed to do FR.
    I weigh 200 plus with gear and I know that a 30 pound build on a Rune or El Guapo would be durable for the majority of my riding. The 30 pound Guapo in this thread is a pretty capable build. The real problem is how much money does a guy want to spend to lighten things up. Having an extra wheelset can make a big difference and would allow a rider to have a 30 pound or sub 30 pound bike and would make the bike 32-35 pounds with a burlier wheelset. There are many factors involved.

    With that said, many people are e-posturing about how core they are with their riding. Yeah, I need a 36 pound am bike for all the 10 foot drops I do, when in reality most of these guys will be hitting two footers to tranny. The vast majority of riders are over-biked and I really wonder how many people on this thread would actually use these bikes for serious free riding. I'm not talking about four foot drops to a perfect tranny but big drops and resort riding.

  72. #72
    Double-metric mtb man
    Reputation: Psycho Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,483
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    I weigh 200 plus with gear and I know that a 30 pound build on a Rune or El Guapo would be durable for my riding. The 30 pound Guapo in this thread is a pretty capable build. The real problem is how much money does a guy want to spend to lighten things up. Having an extra wheelset can make a big difference and would allow a rider to have a 30 pound or sub 30 pound bike and would make the bike 32-35 pounds with a burlier wheelset. There are many factors involved.

    With that said, many people are e-posturing about how core they are with their riding. Yeah, I need a 36 pound bike am bike for all the 10 foot drops I do, when in reality most of these guys will be hitting two footers to tranny. The vast majority of riders are over-biked and I really wonder how many people on this thread would actually use these bikes for serious free riding. I'm not talking about four foot drops to a perfect tranny but big drops and resort riding.
    Ronny, I'm not saying it can't be done and that it can't be done well....I've seen the vids of guys doing Whistler on Runes and such. Main difference is that they are about 80-90# lighter than I am. I'm not a superclyde by any stretch, but I've got a fair bit of weight on even you. Added to that, what I call AM / Lt FR here in Alberta can be a lot different than what passes for it on the east coast or elsewhere.

    Yes, a lot of folks over-present how they actually ride and even if they are hitting big stuff, they aren't doing it all the time. Simple fact of the matter is that the more stress you put on a frame and the less material there is to take it, the less the durability (i.e. more failures). My trail machine can do big stuff....but I don't hit it because I know it won't take long to break something...Same for most 6" 30# bikes.

    Yes it can be done, but I think the durability of most ~6-7lb 6" travel AM/FR frames will suffer if they are actually ridden that way they are hyped or the way some of those disciplines actually happen in other locales.
    As if four times wasn't enough-> Psycho Mike's 2013 Ride to Conquer Cancer Page

    Moran? Let your opinion be free -> F88me

  73. #73
    the train keeps rollin
    Reputation: snowdrifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,213
    Somebody please point me to a picture of that Guapo on a scale proving it's 30lbs. Newsflash, it's not..
    Last edited by snowdrifter; 11-21-2009 at 06:42 PM.
    beaver hunt

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,495
    I would still check out the Rune if I were you. It is a strong ass frame that doesn't cut corners. With a coil shock the medium weighs around 9lbs, and it is made for abuse.

  75. #75
    Seeeriously easy Livin
    Reputation: Flystagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,864
    If people really want to present themselves a pros, then bragging how heavy of a bike you need is not the way, in reality the better rider you are the lighter of a bike you can get away with, just watch lopes shred on a mojo, and most 4x racers are killing 60ft doubles on sub 25lb hardtails with xc race forks on the front. Then look back 10-15 years and look at the flimsy junk people are hucking with. If you are a smooth rider you can ride a light bike. (unfortunately I am not a smooth rider)

  76. #76
    Double-metric mtb man
    Reputation: Psycho Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,483
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    I would still check out the Rune if I were you. It is a strong ass frame that doesn't cut corners. With a coil shock the medium weighs around 9lbs, and it is made for abuse.
    I agree with you Ronny....it is a good frame and I've been mulling it over along with a few others. For me, I'd be looking at it more as a trail/am frame...in a L to XL, of course.

    My main issue with the "type" of bike the OP was going for is the durability of an ultra-light, long travel frame when it comes to full on AM/FR type riding...especially for a larger rider and with what I see as those two styles where I live. Far too many bike companies will simply shave weight from a current bike, rather then do the serious work to design, test, refine and then build a light bike ready to take the level of abuse (esp. out of the huckers) that could be inflicted by consumers believing the hype. The result of simply shaving would be poor durability, more failures and a lot of unhappy people.

    Fly, I agree with you too..you don't need a heavy bike...but you do have to be smooth if you're going to go light. Heck, I've had my 30#, 5x5 "XC" geo bike out to the bike park and loved it...but I had to aim to be super smooth knowing that the bike won't take the thrashing of ripping on everything hard and fast. The hype that goes with a 30#, 6" bike though is that you can pedal it up and then thrash hard all the way down. That takes a lot of work to *really* make that possible with a frame and I don't see a lot of companies (there are some, though) doing what it takes to make it a reality.
    As if four times wasn't enough-> Psycho Mike's 2013 Ride to Conquer Cancer Page

    Moran? Let your opinion be free -> F88me

  77. #77
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Psycho Mike
    I agree with you Ronny....it is a good frame and I've been mulling it over along with a few others. For me, I'd be looking at it more as a trail/am frame...in a L to XL, of course.

    My main issue with the "type" of bike the OP was going for is the durability of an ultra-light, long travel frame when it comes to full on AM/FR type riding...especially for a larger rider and with what I see as those two styles where I live. Far too many bike companies will simply shave weight from a current bike, rather then do the serious work to design, test, refine and then build a light bike ready to take the level of abuse (esp. out of the huckers) that could be inflicted by consumers believing the hype. The result of simply shaving would be poor durability, more failures and a lot of unhappy people.

    Fly, I agree with you too..you don't need a heavy bike...but you do have to be smooth if you're going to go light. Heck, I've had my 30#, 5x5 "XC" geo bike out to the bike park and loved it...but I had to aim to be super smooth knowing that the bike won't take the thrashing of ripping on everything hard and fast. The hype that goes with a 30#, 6" bike though is that you can pedal it up and then thrash hard all the way down. That takes a lot of work to *really* make that possible with a frame and I don't see a lot of companies (there are some, though) doing what it takes to make it a reality.
    Thesa are all great points, and I'm afraid that I am just too biased by my experience and terrain. I should have worded the poll a lot different than I did.

    I was trying to kill a few birds with one stone.

    See, what I see happening is just what has been pointed out. The industry see's the need for LW, durable components and frames. But, a lot of this stuff gets put to market before it is ready...in order to "meet" the demand. We as riders should be a little more patient and learn to "ride" before expecting the industry to substitute technology for skillz. I guess if you guys are willing to guinea pig this crap, then there will always be a need. In the meantime, the industry makes a lot of money and eventually guys like me will get what we need.

    In short there is still some room for refinement for the few companies that are willing to stray from the masses

  78. #78
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdrifter
    Somebody please point me to a picture of that Guapo on a scale proving it's 30lbs. Newsflash, it's not..
    BTW, when I say it's "right at 30 pounds" what I mean is 30 pounds +/- 2 pounds.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  79. #79
    CSM
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Flystagg
    If people really want to present themselves a pros, then bragging how heavy of a bike you need is not the way, in reality the better rider you are the lighter of a bike you can get away with, just watch lopes shred on a mojo, and most 4x racers are killing 60ft doubles on sub 25lb hardtails with xc race forks on the front. Then look back 10-15 years and look at the flimsy junk people are hucking with. If you are a smooth rider you can ride a light bike. (unfortunately I am not a smooth rider)
    Agreed. As I said earlier, and somebody else mentioned, I think this topic has a lot of am/fr riders trying to prove that certain riders are too 'pansy' to ride a 30# 6" travel frame w/o it weighing 36#. I'm not going to blow up a 30# Guapo, hell, I only weigh 150lb on a bad day w/6 liters aqua.

    I don't mind throwing gregarious amounts of money at a bike, but then again I'm in college, with my next 2 years tuition paid, so I don't have the amount of bills some of the older riders have.

  80. #80
    gnuH
    Reputation: kiwirider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,164
    A Yeti 7 (7" travel) can be built to 30lb and is plenty strong.
    A green bird with a red body. We could look it up in a book. Or we could look up

  81. #81
    Double-metric mtb man
    Reputation: Psycho Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    4,483
    Quote Originally Posted by ChemEBiker
    Agreed. As I said earlier, and somebody else mentioned, I think this topic has a lot of am/fr riders trying to prove that certain riders are too 'pansy' to ride a 30# 6" travel frame w/o it weighing 36#. I'm not going to blow up a 30# Guapo, hell, I only weigh 150lb on a bad day w/6 liters aqua.
    That 30# Guapo may have a wee bit harder time with me (at ~245#) on board. For me, the burlier kit I run as a Clyde puts a large or XL 6" build into the low 30# range. I don't need a 38# bike to prove how "manly" I am....but heck, if you start with a big frame made for taking a bit more abuse and a bigger rider, it doesn't take long to get into the 32-35# range. Then again, for a guy my size, the extra weight is proportionally less to deal with (4# to a 150# rider vs 4# for a 245# rider).

    Unfortunately, a lot of companies start with an existing 6" bike design and cut down to make a 30# bike, rather than build up for the purpose...and that's where you're going to have issues.
    As if four times wasn't enough-> Psycho Mike's 2013 Ride to Conquer Cancer Page

    Moran? Let your opinion be free -> F88me

  82. #82
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,411
    Quote Originally Posted by ronny
    I would still check out the Rune if I were you. It is a strong ass frame that doesn't cut corners. With a coil shock the medium weighs around 9lbs, and it is made for abuse.
    Apparently it does cut corners, go look and see what the "correct" sag amount on those frames and think about how that affects the travel.
    "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.

  83. #83
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Flystagg
    If people really want to present themselves a pros, then bragging how heavy of a bike you need is not the way, in reality the better rider you are the lighter of a bike you can get away with, just watch lopes shred on a mojo, and most 4x racers are killing 60ft doubles on sub 25lb hardtails with xc race forks on the front. Then look back 10-15 years and look at the flimsy junk people are hucking with. If you are a smooth rider you can ride a light bike. (unfortunately I am not a smooth rider)
    Not fair. Runs like A-line and other smooth huge jumps are NOT like what most of us encounter on our local DH trails. Oh yeah, some smooth flow-trails with HUGE jumps and run-ins would be cool, but that's not reality. There is one local trail we have called "wasabi" and it's tons of fun, lots of big launches (ramps built, etc). It has some tech parts up higher, but nothing I can't handle on my 6" rig, and the 6" rig is tons of fun on it due to how maneuverable it is. That is ONE trail though, and if I'm riding that on a day that I'm doing other DH stuff, I want a bigger bike for the overall ride. There is no substitute for travel when it gets crazy and nasty, and many DH trails are just that. Even when there are drops and launches, they aren't always in the clear, the landings have debris, the run-ins are sketch, there is limited room, etc. It's not the same as what those guys are launching on those 25lb hardtails you are describing.

    Even when you have the travel, sometimes there's no substitute for a big chunky bike for big chunky terrain.
    "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.

  84. #84
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Not fair. Runs like A-line and other smooth huge jumps are NOT like what most of us encounter on our local DH trails. Oh yeah, some smooth flow-trails with HUGE jumps and run-ins would be cool, but that's not reality.
    Many of our local trails are moving towards trails like you mentioned above....buffed out jumpy/gappy moves with decent transitions (I call it trail paving ). Also, trails tend to be built in the forest and are twisty, making long/big travel DH bikes more cumbersome. Shorter travel and slack work really well in the new PNW.

    Too bad...I kinda like old school "Shore". It would be nice to see some new techy DH trails 'round here.

    Anyway, different strokes for different folks.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  85. #85
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Not fair. Runs like A-line and other smooth huge jumps are NOT like what most of us encounter on our local DH trails. Oh yeah, some smooth flow-trails with HUGE jumps and run-ins would be cool, but that's not reality. There is one local trail we have called "wasabi" and it's tons of fun, lots of big launches (ramps built, etc). It has some tech parts up higher, but nothing I can't handle on my 6" rig, and the 6" rig is tons of fun on it due to how maneuverable it is. That is ONE trail though, and if I'm riding that on a day that I'm doing other DH stuff, I want a bigger bike for the overall ride. There is no substitute for travel when it gets crazy and nasty, and many DH trails are just that. Even when there are drops and launches, they aren't always in the clear, the landings have debris, the run-ins are sketch, there is limited room, etc. It's not the same as what those guys are launching on those 25lb hardtails you are describing.

    Even when you have the travel, sometimes there's no substitute for a big chunky bike for big chunky terrain.
    Good point, Jayem. I still want to get back to Flag for mo' happier ending!

    This is more like what Jayem is talking about. Any of you guys got any pics of your sub 30lb AM rig in a similar environment? FWIW RCC's rig was just under 30.5 lbs last year. He's has since upgraded...er, downgraded to more durable and worthy components. She currently sits right around 34 lbs.




  86. #86
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    Good point, Jayem. I still want to get back to Flag for mo' happier ending!

    This is more like what Jayem is talking about. Any of you guys got any pics of your sub 30lb AM rig in a similar environment? FWIW RCC's rig was just under 30.5 lbs last year. He's has since upgraded...er, downgraded to more durable and worthy components. She currently sits right around 34 lbs.
    I've done Private Reserve on my 6" bike as well, but that's where I prefer more travel. It's just better/funner that way. There are quite a few Flag trails where the 6" bike rips, and a lot of them are not shuttle-able, you have to ride up to find em.

    Flat isn't even the best example, but there are some DH trails in Flag where you want all the travel you can get. There are also plenty of Flag trails where the the 6" coil-sprung bike with slack geometry will BLAST by the lightweight skinny-tire AM bike. Otherwise, there are other AZ trails that we here just consider "normal", whereas out of towners consider it to be "the craziest rockiest trail I've ever seen and it can not be ridden". I'm not kidding when I say we gotta watch it with outta-towners in terms of our ride offers and local info. It's to protect them, but every once and a while we have a ride with someone in way over their head.

    I know there are plenty of other places in the country that have chunky-riding, but we don't often self-reflect and realize that it's a lot chunkier than what most riders regularly ride. You may or may not believe this, but Private Reserve is one of my FAVORITE trails due to the flow, it's not what most people know to be "flow", but I like all the rock transitions and how it doesn't have any death-moves in my experience. I can ride it clean and even though it's steep it's not quite so steep that you are skidding the whole way down. It's got just about everything, jumps, launches, drops, gaps, rock faces, etc. Definitely a special trail. Definitely not for riding on your 30lb AM bikes.
    "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.

  87. #87
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Emergency room visits for noobies became a much too frequent occurrence. Having that much travel and less than capable components is asking for trouble. For one thing air sprung forks/shocks (I am guilty of this) just don't handle the terrain like a good coil. Guys start putting way too much confidence in their bikes and less in themselves. Pretty soon find themselves with some serious injuries. At least 6 riders this year that I have been witness to.

  88. #88
    The Unaffiliated
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    842
    Did nobody mention the Specialized Enduro?

    Also, why is 30# the magic number? Can a 30.1# bike handle a hit that will damage a 29.9# bike?

    This is a ridiculous argument. Let people do whatever the hell they want as long as they aren't hurting anybody else.

    Do you NEED a jacked up 4x4? Do you NEED a gigantic TV? Do you NEED a loud-ass motorcycle?

    If I want a 31# Enduro, I'll buy a 31# Enduro, and I'll beat most riders up AND down the mountain, and I won't walk around the drops. If I break something, I'll fix/replace it. Big deal.

  89. #89
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by thrasher_s

    If I want a 31# Enduro, I'll buy a 31# Enduro, and I'll beat most riders up AND down the mountain, and I won't walk around the drops. If I break something, I'll fix/replace it. Big deal.
    That started to happen to me just about every other ride...good luck with that

    I am also speaking from a point of versatility. No one has addressed the fact that most "intended" sub 30# frames do not have the versatility. Matter of fact they are becoming more proprietary...ie, Spezi

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    99
    Someone should really post this question on the Turner forum and discuss it with the inmates there, given the pitch Turner's site makes for the 2010 RFX (with 170mm in the rear)....

    http://www.turnerbikes.com/010/010rfx.html

    "The RFX can be built to 30lbs for a long legged trail bike, yet can handle the most potent slopes being ridden today"

    Some may consider it silly (my own 6" travel bike weighs 33+) but obviously there's a market for the sub-30 long travel trail bike, and it's a niche lots of manufacturers are targeting. And really, why should anybody care what someone else chooses to ride? If somebody wants to build a light long travel bike,, or prefers air to coil, or any other personal choice, that's their own choice and they're welcome to it...

  91. #91
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by dayuhan
    Someone should really post this question on the Turner forum and discuss it with the inmates there, given the pitch Turner's site makes for the 2010 RFX (with 170mm in the rear)....

    http://www.turnerbikes.com/010/010rfx.html

    "The RFX can be built to 30lbs for a long legged trail bike, yet can handle the most potent slopes being ridden today"

    Some may consider it silly (my own 6" travel bike weighs 33+) but obviously there's a market for the sub-30 long travel trail bike, and it's a niche lots of manufacturers are targeting. And really, why should anybody care what someone else chooses to ride? If somebody wants to build a light long travel bike,, or prefers air to coil, or any other personal choice, that's their own choice and they're welcome to it...
    I'm not arguing that there is a market. Or even your preference for wanting one. I want to know whats the point of having a sub 30lb Lt Fr bike?

    The people in this market are getting bamboozled

  92. #92
    I miss f88
    Reputation: laxman2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    I'm not arguing that there is a market. Or even your preference for wanting one. I want to know whats the point of having a sub 30lb Lt Fr bike?

    The people in this market are getting bamboozled
    Are all 6" bike lt. FR bikes?

    No. End of story.
    Last edited by laxman2001; 12-19-2009 at 01:15 AM.
    WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
    ------__o
    ----_`\<,_
    ---(_)/ (_)

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    I'm not arguing that there is a market. Or even your preference for wanting one. I want to know whats the point of having a sub 30lb Lt Fr bike?

    The people in this market are getting bamboozled
    Seems we're shifting the goalposts a bit here. the initial question was:

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

    Then in the poll the question was:

    Are you interested in a sub 30lb, 6" travel bicycle?

    Now all of a sudden it's this:

    I want to know whats the point of having a sub 30lb Lt Fr bike?

    If you're assuming that a 6" travel bike must by definition be a light freeride bike, the problem is obviously with your fallacious assumption. From a manufacturer's point of view there is obvious utility in a frame that can be built into either a light freeride bike or a lighter long travel trail bike, depending on rider preference and component selection.

    What's the point in a light tough plush slack-angled trail bike? Gee, I dunno, who would possibly want such a thing?

    Sure, most people who build up light 6" bikes could have been just as happy with a 5.5" frame. Just like most people who splash big cash on the latest overhyped suspension design could have been just as happy with something more conventional and less expensive. What's the point in any of it? Why does there need to be a point? People buy what they like, and of course the industry has to keep coming up with "innovations" to keep the money flowing. If people only bought stuff when there was a real major point in doing so the industry would be in deep merde. Maybe that means people are "bamboozled", but if they're happy with what they buy and ride, who cares?

    Now here's a real "what's the point" question...

    Given that so many manufacturers are pushing bikes in the 6" and above travel range as being buildable below 30 pounds, why post this question on the Chumba forum? It's not as if it's somehow a Chumba question... if you really wanted an answer, why not ask the question on the AM forum?

  94. #94
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by dayuhan
    Seems we're shifting the goalposts a bit here. the initial question was:

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

    Then in the poll the question was:

    Are you interested in a sub 30lb, 6" travel bicycle?

    Now all of a sudden it's this:

    I want to know whats the point of having a sub 30lb Lt Fr bike?

    If you're assuming that a 6" travel bike must by definition be a light freeride bike, the problem is obviously with your fallacious assumption. From a manufacturer's point of view there is obvious utility in a frame that can be built into either a light freeride bike or a lighter long travel trail bike, depending on rider preference and component selection.

    What's the point in a light tough plush slack-angled trail bike? Gee, I dunno, who would possibly want such a thing?

    Sure, most people who build up light 6" bikes could have been just as happy with a 5.5" frame. Just like most people who splash big cash on the latest overhyped suspension design could have been just as happy with something more conventional and less expensive. What's the point in any of it? Why does there need to be a point? People buy what they like, and of course the industry has to keep coming up with "innovations" to keep the money flowing. If people only bought stuff when there was a real major point in doing so the industry would be in deep merde. Maybe that means people are "bamboozled", but if they're happy with what they buy and ride, who cares?

    Now here's a real "what's the point" question...

    Given that so many manufacturers are pushing bikes in the 6" and above travel range as being buildable below 30 pounds, why post this question on the Chumba forum? It's not as if it's somehow a Chumba question... if you really wanted an answer, why not ask the question on the AM forum?
    Why this, why that? Why answer a question with a question?

    The Poll ask's "Are you interested..."?

    The Discussion is "What's the point...?"

    You need to look at the discussions that were going on at the time of this post. At the time I was trying to highlight ChumbaEvo some of the design elements that I would look for in a 6" travel Lt Fr bike.

    My point is this:

    If you give the kind of versatility and the necessary structural components that I feel are needed in a 6" do all bike , then it would be very difficult to build it up to a Sub 30lb bike. Even DT agrees with me. Although, he is a marketing genius and knows that the industry has created the "need" for "long legged trail bike" and markets appropriately.

    Compromising any of the above criteria for in the name of saving weight will sacrifice the ride quality for someone who could actually make use of it.

    Just look at the examples of these types of bikes and they are mostly bling. It's not practical in my opinion. The industry is taking advantage of all of the vanity that has seeped into our sport.

    There is no advantage of having 6" of air sprung travel over 4-5" of air sprung travel...imo. Give me an example

    Laxman 2001:

    You don't even know how to fit yourself on a bicycle..who are you to say this argument isn't valid? Even more to the point, who are you to say when this conversation is over?

  95. #95
    Trophy Husband
    Reputation: geolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    There is no advantage of having 6" of air sprung travel over 4-5" of air sprung travel...imo. Give me an example
    1. Raises your E-rider cred.

    That is enough of an advantage for me.
    Extreme stationary biker.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    You need to look at the discussions that were going on at the time of this post. At the time I was trying to highlight ChumbaEvo some of the design elements that I would look for in a 6" travel Lt Fr bike.

    My point is this:

    If you give the kind of versatility and the necessary structural components that I feel are needed in a 6" do all bike , then it would be very difficult to build it up to a Sub 30lb bike. Even DT agrees with me. Although, he is a marketing genius and knows that the industry has created the "need" for "long legged trail bike" and markets appropriately.

    Compromising any of the above criteria for in the name of saving weight will sacrifice the ride quality for someone who could actually make use of it.

    Just look at the examples of these types of bikes and they are mostly bling. It's not practical in my opinion. The industry is taking advantage of all of the vanity that has seeped into our sport.
    Are we talking about bikes or frames? If you're talking design with Chumba, Turner, or any of the others who make 6"+ frames that can be built light you pretty much have to talk frames, because that's what they design.

    It's obviously possible to build a frame that will give the light freeride guys everything they want and will still allow manufacturers to recoup their investment by selling to the long travel trailbike crowd. The 2010 RFX is advertised as buildable under 30... is it too fragile for light freeride? I kind of doubt it. I expect the 2010 Evo to fall into the same category. Obviously you wouldn't want to build one of these up sub-30 if light freeride was your goal, but that's a build issue, not a frame design issue. Frame manufacturers are simply using available technology to build frames that are marketable in two niches, and that makes perfect sense. Don't see any real issue there. Sure, you could discuss the build kit options but people with specific requirements aren't gonna buy a built bike off the rack anyway in most cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    There is no advantage of having 6" of air sprung travel over 4-5" of air sprung travel...imo. Give me an example
    When I bought my current 6" frame (2006; I'm a rider, not a shopper) it was almost impossible to find a shorter travel frame available for sale in my area with the slack angles I was looking for. I may have ended up arguably with more bike than I needed but geometry and fit were more important to me than travel or suspension design or weight. I don't regret it at all, and I've put a shitload of miles on the thing. Maybe I could have done as well with 4" but all the 4" bikes around had angles way too steep.

    You obviously don't like air suspension. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but it's only one opinion and it surely doesn't make anyone who wears an air shock on a longer travel bike a poser. Lots of people out there like air, including some very capable and experienced riders. Virtually every 6" bike on the market is specced with an air shock. Sure, some of that is weight but I doubt that all those manufacturers would spec those shocks if they felt they were hurting performance. If you prefer coil, fine, put a coil shock on and enjoy. No need to pretend that a preference for coil makes you somehow superior.

    Sure, there are guys out there who build up a new bike every year based on hype and MBA reviews, and who often can't ride worth a damn. You could call those guys posers... but what's wrong with that? I love having those guys around, I buy their second hand **** at huge markdowns. There's another kind of poser: the guy who builds his bike a certain way (often just the right way for him) and then walks around with the nose in the air pretending that his choices make him somehow better than everyone who made a different set of choices.

    I actually agree with a lot of the basic points you're making but I think the derisive tone and the apparent contempt for people who make different build choices from yours is uncalled for. Live and let live, ride and let ride.

  97. #97
    I miss f88
    Reputation: laxman2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123

    Laxman 2001:

    You don't even know how to fit yourself on a bicycle..who are you to say this argument isn't valid? Even more to the point, who are you to say when this conversation is over?
    That's what's called an ad-hominem argument. In this case a fallacious use of it. You jackass.

    It completely ignores my point: that clearly a lot of people are quite happy with their 6" 30lb bikes and DON'T USE THEM FOR FREERIDE.

    Maybe, maybe, they don't NEED that much travel, but I bet that it just makes things more comfortable. Nothing wrong with that.


    That's my point.


    You jackass.
    WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
    ------__o
    ----_`\<,_
    ---(_)/ (_)

  98. #98
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    When I bought my current 6" frame (2006; I'm a rider, not a shopper) it was almost impossible to find a shorter travel frame available for sale in my area with the slack angles I was looking for.I may have ended up arguably with more bike than I needed but geometry and fit were more important to me than travel or suspension design or weight. I don't regret it at all, and I've put a shitload of miles on the thing. Maybe I could have done as well with 4" but all the 4" bikes around had angles way too steep.
    This is a valid argument and one I hadn't thought of. I think that rather than trying to pinch pennies and sell one "do-all" bike, the manufacturers should step up and alter the 5" geo to satisfy the AM/Lt Fr crowd. Leave the 6" travel frames dedicated to Agro AM/FR.

    I personally would want to have it overbuilt than under-built in most every condition.

    Again, the manufacturers are just cutting corners. Santa Cruz seems to have the right idea. Maybe two versions of the same frame but duty specific.

    Virtually every 6" bike on the market is specced with an air shock.


    The weight penalty is negligible, compared to the all of the benifits of a coil shock vs air. I can almost guarantee that if 75% of the people converted to coil with a proper tune, they would never even think of returning to air. I personally think that would force the technology that we need in air suspension.

    You brought up some good points and I don't mean to sound abrasive. I am just ill with the throwaway attitude these days. It goes against some of the basic principals of how and why MTB was born.

  99. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    This is a valid argument and one I hadn't thought of. I think that rather than trying to pinch pennies and sell one "do-all" bike, the manufacturers should step up and alter the 5" geo to satisfy the AM/Lt Fr crowd. Leave the 6" travel frames dedicated to Agro AM/FR.

    I personally would want to have it overbuilt than under-built in most every condition.

    Again, the manufacturers are just cutting corners. Santa Cruz seems to have the right idea. Maybe two versions of the same frame but duty specific.
    Manufacturers seem to be catching on to the idea of slacker angles on trail bikes. The Chumba XCL seems to be going in this direction and the Banshee Spitfire looks like it's going to be a really interesting ride.

    For me it's hard to classify frames purely on the basis of travel. In the 6" range you have frames like the 575 or the El Guapo that seem clearly aimed at the long travel trail market and others that seem more skewed toward freeride. Similar travel, different purposes, aimed at different niches. On top of that everybody who says "trail" or "AM" or "FR" means different things by them. One guys "AM" could be another guy's Trail or FR.

    There's tons of really nice stuff out there and almost everybody can find something they want and build it up the way they want. Of course there's always compromise but who's to say what compromise is gonna work best for anyone else? Maybe manufacturers do cut a corner now and then, or press one basic design into multiple niches, or otherwise do what they need to do to sell product and stay in business... welcome to reality. Not like they're gonna purpose-build a frame for each one of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    The weight penalty is negligible, compared to the all of the benifits of a coil shock vs air. I can almost guarantee that if 75% of the people converted to coil with a proper tune, they would never even think of returning to air. I personally think that would force the technology that we need in air suspension.
    Whatever. Some time back I sent the DHX Air in for service, used a DHX 5 for a while, and loved it. I was planning to move to coil but it's pushing a year later and I still haven't got round to it. I guess it's not that big a deal. Actually the DHX Air works pretty well and the 36 Talas is awesome, I've used coil forks and I don't see them as superior in any way. Of course I'm not really a gearhead, as long as stuff works I work with it. Everything these days is so much better than what we were riding 10 years ago that it seems a waste of time to split hairs over what's best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn. Biker123
    You brought up some good points and I don't mean to sound abrasive. I am just ill with the throwaway attitude these days. It goes against some of the basic principals of how and why MTB was born.
    I'm not big on the throwaway attitude either. Like I said, I have one bike and I've been riding it since early 2006 - almost every day. Some component evolution but not a lot. I still paddle a Dagger CFS and drive a 94 Toyota pickup... I tend to hold onto gear that works and think about building skills. On the other hand, the industry needs a bit of that throwaway attitude, and who am I to criticize someone else's choices? Some guys want to build light long travel trail bikes... so what? Maybe they don't "need" them but we all have stuff we don't "need". If it makes 'em happy, why get abrasive over it? And you never know, one of these days you might run into a guy on a 30lb air-sprung 6" travel bike who will walk onto your favorite trail and do stuff you never even dreamed of. Things like that happen...

  100. #100
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,202
    Quote Originally Posted by dayuhan
    Manufacturers seem to be catching on to the idea of slacker angles on trail bikes. The Chumba XCL seems to be going in this direction and the Banshee Spitfire looks like it's going to be a really interesting ride.

    For me it's hard to classify frames purely on the basis of travel. In the 6" range you have frames like the 575 or the El Guapo that seem clearly aimed at the long travel trail market and others that seem more skewed toward freeride. Similar travel, different purposes, aimed at different niches. On top of that everybody who says "trail" or "AM" or "FR" means different things by them. One guys "AM" could be another guy's Trail or FR.

    There's tons of really nice stuff out there and almost everybody can find something they want and build it up the way they want. Of course there's always compromise but who's to say what compromise is gonna work best for anyone else? Maybe manufacturers do cut a corner now and then, or press one basic design into multiple niches, or otherwise do what they need to do to sell product and stay in business... welcome to reality. Not like they're gonna purpose-build a frame for each one of us.



    Whatever. Some time back I sent the DHX Air in for service, used a DHX 5 for a while, and loved it. I was planning to move to coil but it's pushing a year later and I still haven't got round to it. I guess it's not that big a deal. Actually the DHX Air works pretty well and the 36 Talas is awesome, I've used coil forks and I don't see them as superior in any way. Of course I'm not really a gearhead, as long as stuff works I work with it. Everything these days is so much better than what we were riding 10 years ago that it seems a waste of time to split hairs over what's best.



    I'm not big on the throwaway attitude either. Like I said, I have one bike and I've been riding it since early 2006 - almost every day. Some component evolution but not a lot. I still paddle a Dagger CFS and drive a 94 Toyota pickup... I tend to hold onto gear that works and think about building skills. On the other hand, the industry needs a bit of that throwaway attitude, and who am I to criticize someone else's choices? Some guys want to build light long travel trail bikes... so what? Maybe they don't "need" them but we all have stuff we don't "need". If it makes 'em happy, why get abrasive over it? And you never know, one of these days you might run into a guy on a 30lb air-sprung 6" travel bike who will walk onto your favorite trail and do stuff you never even dreamed of. Things like that happen...

    You're even more old skool than me...oh, well. I still see these things as part of the problem and not part of the solution.

    You are OK with the status quo..I get it, but this is a review site. I'm entitled to provide feedback that I feel will benefit a core group of riders. I'm not willing to sit idle and wait for the industry to deliver what I need. Especially when I have a pipeline for direct communication. I think that the majority of people understand the "message" and don't get too hung up on the manner in which it is delivered.

    Did you ride today?










Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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