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

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

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

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

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

    19 23.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 105
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation: Mtn. Biker123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    7,330

    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 08:58 AM.

  2. #2
    The White Jeff W
    Reputation: jeffw-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,624
    As the owner of a Yeti 575 I'm obligated to vote 'yes' here.

  3. #3
    banned
    Reputation: Mtn. Biker123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    7,330
    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 06:36 AM.

  4. #4
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,279
    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 07:20 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: Mtn. Biker123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    7,330
    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
    19,279
    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
    8,437
    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 [SIZE="1"]except for the 1.5 head tube[/SIZE].
    ****

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation: Mtn. Biker123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    7,330
    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: Mtn. Biker123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    7,330
    Can someone inform me why anyone who concerns themselves with "grams" would be interested in a 6" bicycle?

  12. #12
    banned
    Reputation: Mtn. Biker123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    7,330
    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 05:55 AM.

  14. #14
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,260
    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
    17,260
    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
    2,991
    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
    2,991
    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: Mtn. Biker123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    7,330
    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
    17,260
    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: Mtn. Biker123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    7,330
    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
    2,991
    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: Mtn. Biker123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    7,330
    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 08:31 PM.

  23. #23
    Neg reppers r my biatches
    Reputation: FoShizzle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    17,260
    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: Mtn. Biker123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    7,330
    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
    17,260
    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

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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