Results 1 to 85 of 85
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    383

    Endurance bike weight

    With all the talk about when wheels are too light etc for endurance racing it got me thinking about the bike as a whole. I enjoy long rides (5-7 hours of fun), endurance races, occasional weeknight 60 min hammerfest race etc. I dont have the luxury of multiple bikes so one has to do. Im probably 190-200 lbs loaded up and weight weenie doesnt make sense. Ive been competive in the past when my 26 FS bike probably weighed 26-26 lbs (and I was 10 lbs lighter- I am 61 for reference). But everyone was probably on Bikes around that weight in the day (no carbon out there yet!) so it is wasnt a big disadvantage.

    Im thinking a 120/120 bike to allow the fun factor while still hoping for enough efficiency. If I land around 25-26lbs again am I at least able to mostly keep competive and just focus on my own fitness?

  2. #2
    livin' the dream......
    Reputation: tjkm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,688
    Sperky -Good point. I still have not purchased a bike yet (see the Help Me Decide thread..) but I have tested a few bikes in the last two weeks. The 'how much travel' question is where I am stuck. When do you go from 'XC' to 'trail bike"? Over 100ml? 120?

    I rode a Epic Expert Carbon (100ml) and it felt really good. I rode a SC Solo 27.5+(Thx JoePAz) and it felt a bit slow on the rollers and flats (awesome on the down) and then rode a Fuse 27.5+ HT which was a ton of fun.

    I am leaning toward a FS and also considering Trek Top Fuel 8 and EX 8 (27.5+) in addition to the Epic. Both of those bikes are 130ml and reviews say they climb pretty well but bump up to around 30lbs. Not sure what your price range is, but I bet you are looking north of $5k to get around 25lbs? It would be a nice set up though!
    I was too drunk and too much in pain to ride. Good times. - TacoBeer

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,421
    From what I've found you're not going to get majority of bikes with 120mm or more of travel under 27/28lb without sacrificing durability. Specifically in the tires. Running 600g tires in an endurance race is too much of a gamble to me unless your conditions are very smooth.
    Front Range, Colorado

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,019
    I think you're on the right track at 120/120 for a one bike approach.

    I know my 2016 Trek Fuel EX 9.9 had the greatest range of any bike I've ever owned, and was the fastest endurance racing bike.

    I'm now on a 2018 version, which has more travel, and is a better bike in rough stuff, but a slightly less capable racer due to a little more squish and weight.

    I still miss that 2016 FEX, but time marches on, and in your shoes, I'd be looking at a Top Fuel with 120 fork or a Scott Spark (whatever they call the 120 mm versions).
    Whining is not a strategy.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    558
    Lots of super light great options out there in the 100/120 format. Take a gander at those and get yourself a light strong bike that fits your style.

    Element
    429 SL
    Norco revolver FS
    etc

    If you are not worried about winning and being fastest up the hill but want to have absolute fun The bikes with just under 120 rear are fairly interesting.

    Yeti 4.5 is one of these but is a no go if you like water bottles.
    429 trail
    Camber carbon with the pike (my buddy is crazy fast in XCO on this bike showing its the rider not the bike)
    Tallboy
    Etc Etc

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,795
    My 120mm Yeti ASR is 22.5lbs. The new shoes (race day only wheels) should get her closer to sub-22. Honestly the ASR is one the best bikes I have owned, really disappointed to was nicked by Yeti. It's a rocket up and down and I had not problem winning on it.

    I had a 2012 Stumpy FSR sworks that was 23lbs. It was 135mm.
    17 Focus o1e
    17 Yeti ASR-cT
    14 Yeti ARC
    16 Bianchi Specialissima
    15 Echo Big Deal

  7. #7
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    From what I've found you're not going to get majority of bikes with 120mm or more of travel under 27/28lb without sacrificing durability. Specifically in the tires. Running 600g tires in an endurance race is too much of a gamble to me unless your conditions are very smooth.
    I'm going to guarantee that no one in the top 10 at Moab Rocks was riding a bike over 26lbs. Several on 120mm bikes, to include winner Geoff Kabush.

    Not sure what races are rougher than that, but they are probably few and far between.

    I've done a sub-44min loop on Hymasa/Ahab on a 23lb ASRc, with a couple of brief stops for pictures. 700g Vittoria Mezcals front and rear.

    If I was on a 120/120mm Scott Spark non-RC with a 34 and otherwise the same component spec, it would still be sub-24lbs. I'm not sure where or why I would need to add weight. Adding weight for the sake of adding weight seems like a fool's errand to me.
    Death from Below.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    25 is a good line to decide if you are serious or not. Under 25 be prepared to pay up though.

    700 gram tires are the new 600. Also a dropper is a pound. Factor that into discussion.

    Cannodale scalpel aluminum. Two bottles, can be 25/26 pounds with a 120 fox 34.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11
    I live in the Alps and am in the same boat. I race, but want a bike that also works as my funride. Over here we have often loooong uphills, sometimes 10km fireroads and longer in races or to reach some of the good trails. I am not an Enduro rider (too old), so I also look at the 100-130mm range with weight in mind. I guess the pragmatic way is to ride with two wheelsets. One solid, heavier trailset and one lighter one for racing, but within reason. I have similar height and weight (62, 185pounds ridingweight - 186cm, ca. 82kg with gear). So a 1200g Wheelset in 29would never survive a weekend with me.

    I am torn between a Norco Revolver 9.3 (which is easy upgradeable), Anthem2 (alloy, heavier) and a middle-priced Scott Spark (prices crazy over here).

    I dont race for money, so I just couldnt justify paying a lot more for a bike just to get it under 25 pounds. I found a website, where one can calculate the variations of power/weight/gradient and found that an increase in 10W (say from 250W to 260W) over one hour has way more influence on the climbing speed than reducing 2kg weight. As Lane said, 25 pounds ( somewhere below 12kg) is the cut where the weight for a fullsuspension bike gets expensive.

    I made a test: riding 850 altitudemeters with a 29HT with 10,5kg and then with my old 26FS bike with 13kg. I had no powermeter, but almost identical heartrates. Anyway, while the stiff 29er "felt" a lot faster it beat the heavier 26er by mere 40 seconds over that hour. These 40 seconds can be significant in an uphill race, but on the downhill the old FS would blow the hardtail away and to me this anecdote proves the weight is only one aspect in my level of racing and riding.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    I think weight only matters on hike a bike and accelerating in endurance races. Long steady climbs can be managed with effort control. If you are standing out of the saddle raging youll feel 22,25,28 pounds difference. However over like 9 hours you can manage your effort to make up for a heavier bike. Find ways to use it to your advantage.

    I would focus on geometry, wheels, quality parts, then weight in that order.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,322
    Weight matters any time you are going up a hill, or accelerating.

    Uphill performance is a matter of watts/kg. If you don't change anything else (Crr, drivetrain efficiency, suspension, etc) adding or subtracting weight will produce climbing speeds that would be plotted on a straight line. Literally a linear relationship until you get to the point where aerodynamics matter.

    Re: HR as an input. It's something, but unless you had the same thing to eat, had the same level of hydration, etc., the data is meaningless. My HR will be higher at a lower power output at the end of a 1hr30min race simply due to dehydration, than it was at the start. Blood plasma volume loss and its impact on heart rate/athletic performance are pretty well documented in medical/physiological literature.
    Death from Below.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Weight matters any time you are going up a hill, or accelerating.

    Uphill performance is a matter of watts/kg. If you don't change anything else (Crr, drivetrain efficiency, suspension, etc) adding or subtracting weight will produce climbing speeds that would be plotted on a straight line. Literally a linear relationship until you get to the point where aerodynamics matter.
    Weight affects uphill performance, however each person determines how much uphill performance impacts the overall ride. As the poster from the Alps said, ya hes 40 seconds slower uphill, but 1 min faster downhill. It balances out. You dont *need under 25 pounds to do endurance races. It will help though. Races and travel is expensive so if you have a two pond heavier bike but 2 grand more for expenses thats a position the avg endurance racer faces.

    Im not saying it isnt scientifically faster. Im saying save that money and that extra time uphill for a more steady output over the whole race.

    A 22lb bike will be slower than a 28lb bike with the wrong tires, air pressure, or bike fit.
    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by irishpitbull View Post
    Honestly the ASR is one the best bikes I have owned, really disappointed to was nicked by Yeti.
    Word on the street is there is an ASR replacement from Yeti in the works. I've heard spring, but don't count on it.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    I think you're on the right track at 120/120 for a one bike approach.

    I know my 2016 Trek Fuel EX 9.9 had the greatest range of any bike I've ever owned, and was the fastest endurance racing bike.

    I'm now on a 2018 version, which has more travel, and is a better bike in rough stuff, but a slightly less capable racer due to a little more squish and weight.

    I still miss that 2016 FEX, but time marches on, and in your shoes, I'd be looking at a Top Fuel with 120 fork or a Scott Spark (whatever they call the 120 mm versions).
    What did your 2016 weigh at the start line? Thats my dream setup but would have to buy used.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Udyr View Post
    Word on the street is there is an ASR replacement from Yeti in the works. I've heard spring, but don't count on it.
    I got a pocket full of dead presidents waiting on it...

    Lane your argument is ridiculous, your whole theory is based on my bike being setup wrong... I will wipe the floor with you and your 26lb bike. Squeaky clean like.
    17 Focus o1e
    17 Yeti ASR-cT
    14 Yeti ARC
    16 Bianchi Specialissima
    15 Echo Big Deal

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by irishpitbull View Post
    I got a pocket full of dead presidents waiting on it...

    Lane your argument is ridiculous, your whole theory is based on my bike being setup wrong... I will wipe the floor with you and your 26lb bike. Squeaky clean like.
    Haha. Steve no one is talking about you. In any way. You fall into the under 25lbs take it serious class, not the under 25lb walking uphill class. I was speaking in general. Like someone can have a 22lb bike set up wrong and not be faster, and have spent a lot of money. I was using that to further my point about weight not being the utmost important thing.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    Haha. Steve no one is talking about you. In any way. You fall into the under 25lbs take it serious class, not the under 25lb walking uphill class. I was speaking in general. Like someone can have a 22lb bike set up wrong and not be faster, and have spent a lot of money. I was using that to further my point about weight not being the utmost important thing.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    Of course it's not the most important thing. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that.

    But, if someone thinks a bike needs to weigh 27-28lbs to be reliable for endurance racing, they either need to lose a LOT of weight or adjust their riding style.
    Death from Below.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,795
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    Haha. Steve no one is talking about you. In any way. You fall into the under 25lbs take it serious class, not the under 25lb walking uphill class. I was speaking in general. Like someone can have a 22lb bike set up wrong and not be faster, and have spent a lot of money. I was using that to further my point about weight not being the utmost important thing.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    I get what your saying I'm just messing with ya. I would venture say a vast majority of riders have incorrectly setup suspensions and yes when your suspension is dialed it is faster than sloppy setup bike.

    But I don't agree it has to be heavy to be reliable. If you're smart about the components you use it doesn't have to super expensive either alltho expensive is relative to the person.
    17 Focus o1e
    17 Yeti ASR-cT
    14 Yeti ARC
    16 Bianchi Specialissima
    15 Echo Big Deal

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11
    I dont think anyone suggests you need a heavier bike for endurance racing. Lets take the financial side away and look at the differnces in riding philosophy and what makes an impact.

    Wheelsize: 29er are heavier, because they are more material. Id say 120g. Is it worth it? Apparently for the worldclass yes, everyone now is on 29ers, even Scott and Giant switched over. But for an amateur Id say it depends on the hometrails, if a 27.5 is more fun to ride and over the course of several endurance races there is only a small differences. On some 29er wins, on others the 27.5er.

    1x vs 2x: Again the 2x is slightly heavier. Again about 200g maybe? But you get a much wider range, you get the gears closer together and you get a log faster on false-descents where the 1x spins out at 35kph while the 2x can grind to 45kph.

    Dropper post: weightgain actually significant compared to a carbon seatpost, but most people nowadays ride them even in XC.

    And wheels: thin wheels vs fatter ones with stronger sidewalls. Again many choose the heavier version.

    The trick is to find your balance for your style between these weightdecisions and then with your budget get at least somewhere between 24 and 26 pounds. But if you can afford it....lower weight is ALWAYS better. But a dropper post, 29er and 2x can make you much faster on the right course despite the added 2 pounds.

  20. #20
    I like turtles
    Reputation: TiGeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,174
    The Niner RKT RDO (complete build) is now a 120 f/90r bike. With the 34, beefier carbon wheels, non-WW tires, and a dropper, it's 25.5. Perfect racer/trail bike that isn't a low/long/slack/endurobro bike. The 34 and dropper are going to add 2 pounds but worth it as I am finding out.
    Geologist by trade...bicycle mechanic (former) by the grace of God!

    2018 Niner RKT 9 RDO - enduro are #@$%

  21. #21
    I like turtles
    Reputation: TiGeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,174
    Quote Originally Posted by alpi69 View Post
    I dont think anyone suggests you need a heavier bike for endurance racing. Lets take the financial side away and look at the differnces in riding philosophy and what makes an impact.

    Wheelsize: 29er are heavier, because they are more material. Id say 120g. Is it worth it? Apparently for the worldclass yes, everyone now is on 29ers, even Scott and Giant switched over. But for an amateur Id say it depends on the hometrails, if a 27.5 is more fun to ride and over the course of several endurance races there is only a small differences. On some 29er wins, on others the 27.5er.

    1x vs 2x: Again the 2x is slightly heavier. Again about 200g maybe? But you get a much wider range, you get the gears closer together and you get a log faster on false-descents where the 1x spins out at 35kph while the 2x can grind to 45kph.

    Dropper post: weightgain actually significant compared to a carbon seatpost, but most people nowadays ride them even in XC.

    And wheels: thin wheels vs fatter ones with stronger sidewalls. Again many choose the heavier version.

    The trick is to find your balance for your style between these weightdecisions and then with your budget get at least somewhere between 24 and 26 pounds. But if you can afford it....lower weight is ALWAYS better. But a dropper post, 29er and 2x can make you much faster on the right course despite the added 2 pounds.
    2x even with the ability to go Eagle 1x12 now? I think this sorted that issue out in terms of range.
    Geologist by trade...bicycle mechanic (former) by the grace of God!

    2018 Niner RKT 9 RDO - enduro are #@$%

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Most middle spec 100mm bikes are around 25pounds anyways. Its hard to find a real heavy stock bike wity quality parts. Something like the aluminum Giant anthem is 25 pounds stock with SLX. So weights are down as a whole. Now high end trail bikes are 24 pounds. My older giant anthem 29 frame was 5.5 pounds. Thats trail bikes now.

    A lot of people hear endurance and think that means they automatically need more bike and more durable bike. Need to buy more stuff etc. A lot of that is marketing and internet forums. We are all guilty. I got passed by guys on thunderburts rigid ss in Marji gesick and i was on xr4/3 walking my 20lb weigh weenie xc bike uphill. There were guys on transition 140 27.5 bikes with minions passing me also. I was also passing guy's walking their 9 grand top fuel 9.9 uphill. So the bike is an important part but so are a lot of other things. Its a fine line between making your bike lighter vs less capable. The best endurance bike is a 16lb rigid ss really because its simple and light. However its a lot less capable.

    Heres my riding partners bike. Guess how much it weighs for 9200 us dollars. This is without the top tube bag or 2.6 nobby nics....

    Spending money doesnt always get you super light either. No one would argue thats not an endurance bike of the highest order.
    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    I like turtles
    Reputation: TiGeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,174
    I was shocked when my new 5-star Niner RKT came in (no dropper yet) at 24.9...I came off a 22.5 HT. But, it so much more capable and adding the dropper put me at 25.5 and I wouldn't change it. Worked perfect for a 24 hour team event. 2-3 pounds will have zero impact on the average rider but I understand it's fun to have light stuff and makes you feel fast.
    Geologist by trade...bicycle mechanic (former) by the grace of God!

    2018 Niner RKT 9 RDO - enduro are #@$%

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,019
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    What did your 2016 weigh at the start line? Thats my dream setup but would have to buy used.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    Right at 24, according to the shop guys. Size XL, no dropper.
    Last edited by kosmo; 3 Weeks Ago at 07:58 AM.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    592
    Realistically, if you have weight to lose or watts to gain, bike weight is a very small matter comparatively. Losing 3 pounds on the bike (from 26 to 23) is usually quite expensive. Losing 3 pounds on the body is much easier (for most people).

    When you do the math, for a long event with lots of climbing (10k+), 1 lbs lost works out to be roughly 1min off your finishing time. If you can increase your normalized power by 1w, you get the same effect, 1 min off your finishing time. This is overly simplified because it depends on the course and I'm using a basic benchmark from BestBikeSplit, but thats the reality of it.

    Increase power from body -> decrease weight to the point where power is still sustainable -> get descending and technical skills dialed -> worry about bike weight last. Most people could increase their FTP by 5-10 watts and lose 5-10 pounds if they focused on it which would give a way bigger result than a lighter bike.

    My new FS endurance bike weighs probably 4-5 pounds heavier than my hardtail, but the geometry is legit and I'm descending 98% as fast as my AM bike. I expect to gain significant time on the downs for the races I'm focusing on. I'll more than make up for the weight gain from the bike with fitness gains and hope to lose a few more pounds as well, so it should work out.
    Last edited by Udyr; 3 Weeks Ago at 05:27 PM.

  26. #26
    LMN
    LMN is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    4,737
    There are claimed weights and then there is the weights of bikes that people actually race. The two are usually different by 2lbs.

    It seems that a high end 120mm bike is in that 25lb range. That is assuming you are running:
    -Dropper
    -A Float 34 or something equivalent
    -A 2.3 tire with reasonable durability.

    It is possible to get the bikes lighter but there is a durability compromise that may or not matter to you.

    For example, the new modern super light XC frames, really don't like crashing. I am seeing a lot more impact failures from all manufactures then I use to. Where as the 1lb "trail" frames are a lot more durable.

    From a performance side weight matter, no way around that. All things equal a heavier bike is slower. The difference is small, and for most of use a bike that is 1 to 2 minutes slower over a 4hr race really isn't that big of a deal. However, if you are at the pointy end of the field it certainly does matter.

    I have a 22lb FS XC race bike, and a 25lb 140mm trail bike. Last year when I race single track 6, I rode the trail bike. I might have been quicker on XC bike, but fuelling properly would have made a much bigger difference.

  27. #27
    I like turtles
    Reputation: TiGeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,174
    Also keep in mind total weight. Bike weight needs to include pedals, bottle cages, etc. Most folks are also strapping tubes and other bits to their frames as well. These all add weight and there are weight savings here to be gained. So if you are really comparing weights, you need to weigh your rig fully kitted up and ready to ride - I would think that adds at least 2 pounds and that's without water.
    Geologist by trade...bicycle mechanic (former) by the grace of God!

    2018 Niner RKT 9 RDO - enduro are #@$%

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by TiGeo View Post
    Also keep in mind total weight. Bike weight needs to include pedals, bottle cages, etc. Most folks are also strapping tubes and other bits to their frames as well. These all add weight and there are weight savings here to be gained. So if you are really comparing weights, you need to weigh your rig fully kitted up and ready to ride - I would think that adds at least 2 pounds and that's without water.
    Thats how i talk. Number plate on at the line. A lot of these other people mean with no pedals or sealant in tires lol.

    My bike at the start of this 50 mile race with all my shit loaded on was 29.2 pounds. It was 25 pounds without water or food or tube etc. Thats when i started changing my take on things. I was blasting that 29 pound bike around, because it rode over and through anything and i was bombing downhill. When i would stand and hammer something short and steep it was for sure noticeable for the first few pedal stroke before i got some inertia going again. I just added 5lbs to my rdo singlespeed by putting a f34, dropper, 800 gram tires. At first i was like man i feel so slowwww. Then i loaded strava and it was my second fastest lap on this trail ive ridden like 25 times and like 22 of them at race pace. I was shocked. It was weird because i actually didnt set any prs in any sections but on the whole trail i did. Tells me i was able to carry momentum the whole time not just hammer certain segments fast. Thats endurance racing. Optimum not maximum speed.



    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,795
    Quote Originally Posted by TiGeo View Post
    Also keep in mind total weight. Bike weight needs to include pedals, bottle cages, etc. Most folks are also strapping tubes and other bits to their frames as well. These all add weight and there are weight savings here to be gained. So if you are really comparing weights, you need to weigh your rig fully kitted up and ready to ride - I would think that adds at least 2 pounds and that's without water.
    My weights always include pedals, cages, and gps mount.

    My tube, C02, lever, and quicklink go in my jersey. If you think those should be included in bike weight, then we should also include shoes, helmet, gloves, glasses , etc.
    17 Focus o1e
    17 Yeti ASR-cT
    14 Yeti ARC
    16 Bianchi Specialissima
    15 Echo Big Deal

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by irishpitbull View Post
    My weights always include pedals, cages, and gps mount.

    My tube, C02, lever, and quicklink go in my jersey. If you think those should be included in bike weight, then we should also include shoes, helmet, gloves, glasses , etc.
    Where do you factor water weight in? Do you include that when putting a bike build together. Or just pedals cage and mount? Thats why im saying a 26 pound bike because a scalpel with two bottles of water adds two pounds alone. Ive seen you wearing that fanny pack thing too, is that just for food and all that?

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,795
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    Where do you factor water weight in? Do you include that when putting a bike build together. Or just pedals cage and mount? Thats why im saying a 26 pound bike because a scalpel with two bottles of water adds two pounds alone. Ive seen you wearing that fanny pack thing too, is that just for food and all that?

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    Water weight is not the bikes weight. What if you use camelpak? Does that count towards the bike weight?
    17 Focus o1e
    17 Yeti ASR-cT
    14 Yeti ARC
    16 Bianchi Specialissima
    15 Echo Big Deal

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by irishpitbull View Post
    Water weight is not the bikes weight. What if you use camelpak? Does that count towards the bike weight?
    No camelbak for me. Thats why i include the weight of two ~20 oz bottles of water in my bike weights. Then a dropper, and 2.3 xr 2/3 tires. Any build weight projections starts there.

    To add. A dropper is not needed in all endurance races so thats a pound ish to play with. I have reverb and a syntace p6 to swap back forth.

    Unless i get a top fuel on ep working at a bike shop i am going with the scalpel.

    Scalpel si frame
    Fox 120
    Dt 240/nextie
    2x11 36/24 with a 11-32 road
    Fall line 9.8 dropper
    2.3 xr 2/3 tires
    Xt 4 piston brakes

    Two bottles, 120 fork, dropper, tight spaced wide range gearing. Ymmv



    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  33. #33
    I like turtles
    Reputation: TiGeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,174
    My point was simply to make sure weights are an apples to apples comparo i.e. pedals sealant etc.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    Geologist by trade...bicycle mechanic (former) by the grace of God!

    2018 Niner RKT 9 RDO - enduro are #@$%

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    383
    Im not really thinking water weight st this point. Some people carry 1, 2 or no bottles on the bike. Thus just best to consider the regular stuff and leave out what people may or may not choose to carry on the bike in addition.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by sperky View Post
    Im not really thinking water weight st this point. Some people carry 1, 2 or no bottles on the bike. Thus just best to consider the regular stuff and leave out what people may or may not choose to carry on the bike in addition.
    Thats why there are so many varying opinions. I like to factor in race ready because thats exactly what im buying it for. So i know im using two full bottles on any bike i choose. I know im putting a tube, and frame pump, a feed bag probably. So you can take a really light bike and make it heavier pretty quick. So i focus on being in better shape.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by sperky View Post
    Im not really thinking water weight st this point. Some people carry 1, 2 or no bottles on the bike. Thus just best to consider the regular stuff and leave out what people may or may not choose to carry on the bike in addition.
    Yeah including water doesn't really make sense - thats a variable depending on course. Plus it will be the same weight bike to bike anyway.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by toodles View Post
    Yeah including water doesn't really make sense - thats a variable depending on course. Plus it will be the same weight bike to bike anyway.
    I can guarantee you any "endurance race" takes more than one or two bottles so you are guaranteed to line up with as many as two on your frame. You can make that argument in xc racing under 2hrs. This is endurace racing. Over 2 more like 3 hours. Youll need water, some food. How you decide to carry that on bike or body is part of the decision when deciding what bike to buy. Do you wear a camelbak? Okay then two bottle bikes dont matter, you can get a one bottle bike, it will be a pound lighter, and youll have pound heavier strapped to your back. Of course someone can chime in and say well what if its 8 hrs of laps of a 5 mile trail with a new bottle each lap etc, okay you can make that point also but generally any endurance ride will reguire at least two bottles worth on you at all times.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Streetdoctor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,421
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    I can guarantee you any "endurance race" takes more than one or two bottles so you are guaranteed to line up with as many as two on your frame. You can make that argument in xc racing under 2hrs. This is endurace racing. Over 2 more like 3 hours. Youll need water, some food. How you decide to carry that on bike or body is part of the decision when deciding what bike to buy. Do you wear a camelbak? Okay then two bottle bikes dont matter, you can get a one bottle bike, it will be a pound lighter, and youll have pound heavier strapped to your back. Of course someone can chime in and say well what if its 8 hrs of laps of a 5 mile trail with a new bottle each lap etc, okay you can make that point also but generally any endurance ride will reguire at least two bottles worth on you at all times.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    Hmmm most endurance races out here have aid stations every 10 miles with everything you need. Guys winning races usually seem to only carry one bottle and no pack.
    Front Range, Colorado

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Streetdoctor View Post
    Hmmm most endurance races out here have aid stations every 10 miles with everything you need. Guys winning races usually seem to only carry one bottle and no pack.
    Here's a guy for the one bottle approach. It's a one liter Zefal magnum bottle, but still, I really try and avoid a pack.

    I stage my own replacement bottles at aid stations, and when it's really hot, also send a 2-liter bottle of weak fuel to a key station (or two).

    But I gotta say, I wouldn't mind if the next ride had two bottle mounts!

    As far as bike weight goes, it's bike, pedals, and cages, then scale. Everything else is discretionary as to where it goes, or whether it goes at all.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  40. #40
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,675
    Great thread right up to the pissing contests on wether with/without water counts as bike weight. Come on fellas....
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47 View Post
    Great thread right up to the pissing contests on wether with/without water counts as bike weight. Come on fellas....
    Might as well have silly arguments while we can before the only argument is "how long does your battery last" haha. I wasnt implying i count water when just weighing my bike, but when talking about endurance racing and training i keep track of the "extra" weight also because you can build a super light "bike" then load it up with uneeded crap and its right back as a heavy bike again.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    I can guarantee you any "endurance race" takes more than one or two bottles so you are guaranteed to line up with as many as two on your frame. You can make that argument in xc racing under 2hrs. This is endurace racing. Over 2 more like 3 hours. Youll need water, some food. How you decide to carry that on bike or body is part of the decision when deciding what bike to buy. Do you wear a camelbak? Okay then two bottle bikes dont matter, you can get a one bottle bike, it will be a pound lighter, and youll have pound heavier strapped to your back. Of course someone can chime in and say well what if its 8 hrs of laps of a 5 mile trail with a new bottle each lap etc, okay you can make that point also but generally any endurance ride will reguire at least two bottles worth on you at all times.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    Well yeah - we have a few 6 and 12 hour marathon races around here and its bloody hot. But there are aid stations etc.

    My point was more that water isn't really a component, plus you're going to use it up during the event so why include it in bike weight? I guess I only really compare bike weight for bike shopping purposes, not for ride calcs etc so I might be coming at it from the wrong angle.

  43. #43
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    Might as well have silly arguments while we can before the only argument is "how long does your battery last" haha. I wasnt implying i count water when just weighing my bike, but when talking about endurance racing and training i keep track of the "extra" weight also because you can build a super light "bike" then load it up with uneeded crap and its right back as a heavy bike again.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    No, I get it. The thread just started to take on one in the "NorCal" forum! Lol...
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  44. #44
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,322
    So, I have a "45lb" weight that I bought from the local Play it Again Sports for the purposes of using it as a known weight to adjust the slope on my SRM.

    I took it to three different local USPS locations, and had them all weigh it, with a bit of 550/paracord attached. 46lbs 0.4oz at two, flickering between 0.4 and 0.5 at the third. So, 46lbs 0.4oz.

    My fish scale goes up to 50lbs. I use it to weigh things, like bikes. To see how accurate it was, I put my 46lb 0.4oz weight on the hook. According to my scale, it's 20.95kg. In pounds and ounces, that's 46lbs 2.88oz.

    So, at most, my scale is off by less than 2.5oz (0.15lb). Note that it's reading higher than what USPS' scales read. And, unless that iron plate and plastic cord have absorbed or lost water since then, I think I have a reliable basis for comparison.

    Just weighed my bike, which has my Awesome Strap, tube, lever, CO2 and small multitool on it. 10.90kg. 23.98lbs. Without all of that, it's 10.64kg. Included are SRM power meter, Garmin mount, Garmin.

    That's with "real world" 700g+ tires (they were 720g+ a piece, IIRC), dropper, pedals, and everything else you need to ride a bicycle, or, God help you, race a bicycle. It's lighter if you swap out the DT Swiss RWS axles for the bolt-on axles I use for racing, but I trust you guys can subtract 70g from the figures listed above.

    Just spent 4 days in Moab on said bicycle. Didn't break anything, didn't have any flats, and rode fairly quickly on rough terrain, and some of the courses, used in one of the nastier stage races out there.
    Death from Below.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,019
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    Might as well have silly arguments while we can before the only argument is "how long does your battery last" haha.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  46. #46
    Armature speller
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,421
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    Might as well have silly arguments while we can before the only argument is "how long does your battery last" haha.
    Confucious say "flat battery lasts forever".

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slacker607's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    55
    What are the 120/120 options currently available without a slacked out trail bike geometry? The only options I have found are hunting down a 2016 FEX or a new 2018 scalpel SE. Both would put you in the 24-28lb range depending on components.

  48. #48
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by slacker607 View Post
    What are the 120/120 options currently available without a slacked out trail bike geometry? The only options I have found are hunting down a 2016 FEX or a new 2018 scalpel SE. Both would put you in the 24-28lb range depending on components.
    Orbea Occam TR, Scott Spark 900.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by slacker607 View Post
    What are the 120/120 options currently available without a slacked out trail bike geometry? The only options I have found are hunting down a 2016 FEX or a new 2018 scalpel SE. Both would put you in the 24-28lb range depending on components.
    Yeah, Scott Spark come in 120/120 and depending on setup can be light

    I go for Norco Revolver. Comes with 100/100, but add a 120 fork and it turns into a competent trailbike or endurance racer.

    Giant Anthem from 2017 was 120/110. But only in 650B.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Orbea Occam TR
    This bike caught my eye, too. Maybe similar to the late, great 2016 Fuel EX.

    Hopefully there will be some reviews to pour over this winter.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    This bike caught my eye, too. Maybe similar to the late, great 2016 Fuel EX.

    Hopefully there will be some reviews to pour over this winter.
    Two female riders i know ride these. One in xc races and some NUE. One in Enduros and NUE type events in Scotland. Same bikes different colors. So for one its a snappy "trail bike" for the other its a plush "race bike". Seems pretty versatile. Thats not a ride feeback post really more of how ive seen them used. The xc based woman had the Liv 100mm 27.5 xc fs prior wanted more cush as her level increased and rides and races got longer. The Brit, she came from a 150mm Canyon 26 and wanted less travel more rollover. I would think on paper its slightly faster than the 130 fuel and possibly "faster" than the 67 deg non rc spark also. I define faster by the inputs i give the bike how fast does it respond. So im describing how things like hta and trail and offset play out not weight or suspension performance. You can "feel" faster and be slower too when the bike is so twitchy you have to keep redirecting its lines and possibly braking more or less speed in super tecnhical short downhills. Actually "descending" doesnt really happen in endurance races. Theres some descents of course, but not the equivalent of getting a ride to the top of a mountain and rolling down the whole way. I think when you start getting into 120/120 bikes you start attracting the attention of people who may do an endurance race or two and try and "enduro" on it, maybe put a 130 fork etc. Thats a hard niche to build a bike for. Thats probably why so little options.

    They are basically saying put a 120 on the 100mm bikes, or just ride your 130 bike and be a tad slower uphill and just make up for it, or they probably dont think super hardcore racers are looking for these sacrifices. A little more than xc and a little less than trail. Talking about it on paper makes total sense but the matketing "geniuses" don't want blurred lines. Need a new bike for each type of riding. If they built a super versatile bike that meant the majority of riders only needed one. Well business 101 answers that.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slacker607's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Orbea Occam TR, Scott Spark 900.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    I looked at both and they are more on the trail end of the geometry spectrum. I am not trying to run something with less than a 68 degree head angle (I guess this is just me being slow to adapt). I plan to upgrade this winter for racing Arizona starting in January. Currently the Rocky Mountain Element at 100mm rear 120 front is at the top of my list. I would really like 120 rear since some of the drops to flat are around 4 foot. I am surprised to find almost no options for 120 rear with a 68-70 degree head angle.

  53. #53
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by slacker607 View Post
    I looked at both and they are more on the trail end of the geometry spectrum. I am not trying to run something with less than a 68 degree head angle (I guess this is just me being slow to adapt). I plan to upgrade this winter for racing Arizona starting in January. Currently the Rocky Mountain Element at 100mm rear 120 front is at the top of my list. I would really like 120 rear since some of the drops to flat are around 4 foot. I am surprised to find almost no options for 120 rear with a 68-70 degree head angle.
    This is why I'd like someone to buy the 2016 Fuel EX and start popping out 120/120 wunderbikes.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    One brand that is never mentioned. Felt. The Edict.

    My buddy has a 120/120? Edict. I know the front is 120 and he spent a bunch of money making the rear have a longer shock somehow. This is the version from the past few years.

    Sometime recently or near future Felt has the new Edict coming out. I wonder where that will stack up as far as travel and angles

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    This is why I'd like someone to buy the 2016 Fuel EX and start popping out 120/120 wunderbikes.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    By someone do you mean China? And do you mean make clones? Well if that can happen we should all pitch in and send every factory in China one and say make us a clone.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  56. #56
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    By someone do you mean China? And do you mean make clones? Well if that can happen we should all pitch in and send every factory in China one and say make us a clone.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    Whoever. China, Taiwan, another bike company in the US, whatever.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    Whoever. China, Taiwan, another bike company in the US, whatever.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    What kind of legal areas are there? Can we buy the design from Trek, i know its way off topic just curious, never really looked into what companies do after they discontinue a model. Theoretically could i start making Trek Fuel clones in my garage and sell them free from any retribution from Trek? My gf is in China as we speak on a work trip to 9 cities. I have always joked about things like this but if we can do something like borealise and sarma and all those companies where they took a generic chima frame and put logos and sold them. Im just brainstorming.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: slacker607's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    55
    ^^


  59. #59
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    What kind of legal areas are there? Can we buy the design from Trek, i know its way off topic just curious, never really looked into what companies do after they discontinue a model. Theoretically could i start making Trek Fuel clones in my garage and sell them free from any retribution from Trek? My gf is in China as we speak on a work trip to 9 cities. I have always joked about things like this but if we can do something like borealise and sarma and all those companies where they took a generic chima frame and put logos and sold them. Im just brainstorming.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    I was kind of kidding. Kind of.

    But...

    I'm guessing the molds still exist. I'm also guessing Trek wouldn't sell them. At least, not cheaply.

    However, a similar geometry bike with a different suspension platform should be possible.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I was kind of kidding. Kind of.

    But...

    I'm guessing the molds still exist. I'm also guessing Trek wouldn't sell them. At least, not cheaply.

    However, a similar geometry bike with a different suspension platform should be possible.



    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    So we figure out what factory made the non Waterloo frames and tell them fire up the oven. Something like kickstarter maybe? I dont know. It would be sweet though if there was a way to buy that bike new with a warranty.

    The Kona Hei Hei has a 120/120 model. That race supreme version looks pretty top level.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  61. #61
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    One brand that is never mentioned. Felt. The Edict.

    My buddy has a 120/120? Edict. I know the front is 120 and he spent a bunch of money making the rear have a longer shock somehow. This is the version from the past few years.

    Sometime recently or near future Felt has the new Edict coming out. I wonder where that will stack up as far as travel and angles

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    I saw write up on the new model recently think it was 140-150. Price tag was $10k tho..
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47 View Post
    I saw write up on the new model recently think it was 140-150. Price tag was $10k tho..
    That was probably the Decree not the Edict. Or something else. Larissa Connors won leadville on it. I dont think it was 140. Her husband designed it he is the design engineer at Felt.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    What kind of legal areas are there? Can we buy the design from Trek, i know its way off topic just curious, never really looked into what companies do after they discontinue a model. Theoretically could i start making Trek Fuel clones in my garage and sell them free from any retribution from Trek? My gf is in China as we speak on a work trip to 9 cities. I have always joked about things like this but if we can do something like borealise and sarma and all those companies where they took a generic chima frame and put logos and sold them. Im just brainstorming.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    So if your gf is in China (that's a big "IF") she can research companies in carbon fiber manufacturing, visit the plants with a mere emailed request, understand their engineering capabilities, supply chain, manufacturing capabilities, etc and reach a conclusion as to which company is ready to support? I'm assuming she's an experienced composites engineer with a background in suspension design meanwhile you will handle the legal and capital aspects of this new business where you will make millions of dollars? What could go wrong? I love your posts, so devoid of details yet so reaching in their conclusions.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by MessagefromTate View Post
    So if your gf is in China (that's a big "IF") she can research companies in carbon fiber manufacturing, visit the plants with a mere emailed request, understand their engineering capabilities, supply chain, manufacturing capabilities, etc and reach a conclusion as to which company is ready to support? I'm assuming she's an experienced composites engineer with a background in suspension design meanwhile you will handle the legal and capital aspects of this new business where you will make millions of dollars? What could go wrong? I love your posts, so devoid of details yet so reaching in their conclusions.
    No, she has real work to do. Lol. I guess when they told you to stop trolling me or get banned you didnt take them serious. Its going to be great when im still here and all the people who kept trolling me for a reaction, while simultaneously calling me a troll are banned. Cant wait.



    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,019
    If I could design my personal perfect short travel bike, I at least THINK it would be a Top Fuel with 110 mm out back, and 120 mm in front.

    But honestly, other than a snappy feel, the current 130 mm Fuel EX has a LOT more range than my old 120 version did. It's the same time on most of my loops, and faster on rough loops. The real kicker is that it was an absolute blast in Moab. Never did I think I wanted more travel. The old version was OK, but not ideal, in Moab-style riding. Same observation applies to my local moto trails in Hood River.

    But on fast, curvy, smooth-ish stuff, I still miss that snappy feel!
    Whining is not a strategy.

  66. #66
    Formerly of Kent
    Reputation: Le Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8,322
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    If I could design my personal perfect short travel bike, I at least THINK it would be a Top Fuel with 110 mm out back, and 120 mm in front.

    But honestly, other than a snappy feel, the current 130 mm Fuel EX has a LOT more range than my old 120 version did. It's the same time on most of my loops, and faster on rough loops. The real kicker is that it was an absolute blast in Moab. Never did I think I wanted more travel. The old version was OK, but not ideal, in Moab-style riding. Same observation applies to my local moto trails in Hood River.

    But on fast, curvy, smooth-ish stuff, I still miss that snappy feel!
    I haven't thrown a leg over a Top Fuel in a hot minute, so:

    1) How much space between linkage and frame at full shock compression?

    2) Could you install offset bushings and a very slightly longer travel shock to get 110mm?

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Death from Below.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I haven't thrown a leg over a Top Fuel in a hot minute, so:

    1) How much space between linkage and frame at full shock compression?

    2) Could you install offset bushings and a very slightly longer travel shock to get 110mm?

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    This sounds like what my friend did to make his Felt Edict more travel in the rear. I know he had to change something and buy a new shock not just add travel like a fork.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  68. #68
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,675
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    That was probably the Decree not the Edict. Or something else. Larissa Connors won leadville on it. I dont think it was 140. Her husband designed it he is the design engineer at Felt.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    Correct. Decree. My bad. But still the Felts are rather pricey. :0
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    383
    Ok here is what my result is after a little diet. I know what everyone might say but the bike works for me and it is damn fun in so many different environments. Its right at 25lbs.

    Spec is:
    XTR cranks, brakes, shifter, derailleur
    One up 32 oval ring and XT/One up 11-50 cassette
    I9/Nox/CX Ray wheelset
    Racing Ralphs (2.35 & 2.25)
    ENVE post/stem/bar
    Fabric saddle
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Endurance bike weight-image1.jpeg  


  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    6,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Le Duke View Post
    I haven't thrown a leg over a Top Fuel in a hot minute, so:

    1) How much space between linkage and frame at full shock compression?

    2) Could you install offset bushings and a very slightly longer travel shock to get 110mm?

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    Seems like we worked through this a few years ago, and that the answer was no, because there was no slightly longer shock available in the trunion mount style used on that wonderful bike.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    If I could design my personal perfect short travel bike, I at least THINK it would be a Top Fuel with 110 mm out back, and 120 mm in front.

    But honestly, other than a snappy feel, the current 130 mm Fuel EX has a LOT more range than my old 120 version did. It's the same time on most of my loops, and faster on rough loops. The real kicker is that it was an absolute blast in Moab. Never did I think I wanted more travel. The old version was OK, but not ideal, in Moab-style riding. Same observation applies to my local moto trails in Hood River.

    But on fast, curvy, smooth-ish stuff, I still miss that snappy feel!
    I also have a 2017 Trek Fuel EX (130mm front/rear, 67.7 degree head angle). I've ridden long endurance races on it like the Leadville 100, and also gnarlier stuff like Porcupine Rim in Moab. It's a great all round bike and very capable over a wide range of trail types.

    Like others have said, you don't *need* a light bike for endurance events, but I do notice the difference between my current bike (25 lbs) and my old bike (29 lbs). Where I find the difference to be most noticeable is less on long steady climbs, and more on short accelerations, and getting the bike over obstacles like rocks and ledges. All in, I feel the lighter bike reduces fatigue over long events.

    That said, there is also a downside of a light bike - I cracked the frame on my Fuel during a race in Fruita that necessitated a $600 frame repair. A large rock with a sharp corner popped up from my front wheel and impacted the downtube - the sharp pointed corner penetrated the downtube protector and created a star shaped crack about the size of a quarter in the frame. While I think I was unlucky with the way the pointed corner of the rock hit my downtube, I think a beefier frame (e.g. aluminium) would probably not have cracked. Despite this, I'd still recommend the Fuel as a great all round bike.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Endurance bike weight-fuel-ex-porcupine.jpg  


  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Hardtails are not dead. If you want a light endurance bike with two bottles and its for a race where you are suffering anyways. Now that I moved to Arizona and have done a bit of riding i would much rather have a hardtail on rocks than roots. I think roots beat you up more than rocks. Rocks hurt if you crash. To be able to pedal through crazy chunky rocks and climb rock ledges the control and weight of a hardtail is unmatched still.



    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: davesupra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by slacker607 View Post
    I am surprised to find almost no options for 120 rear with a 68-70 degree head angle.
    Salsa Horsethief. I have a 130mm pike on the front and it has 120 on the back. 68 deg head angle. I love mine.
    DaveH
    '15 Salsa Horsethief
    '13 9:ZERO:7
    '09 Specialized Allez
    '16 Salsa Fargo

  74. #74
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    10,675
    Nice! Looks good and like you got to the magic #25 on your build. Throw a couple more profile pix so we can get a better view!
    Wait whuuut, who did he tell you that!?!?....

  75. #75
    Live Free & Ride
    Reputation: NH Mtbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,147
    14 Zaskar 100 carbon 9r is right under 26 lbs with no crazy light parts, but is set up as an all around xc/trail bike. Works very well climbing and even better descending! Just under 68 deg HA and 5.5 lb frame.

    Spec is:
    120mm Manitous Marvel Pro
    Guide RS brakes, 180 Airotor
    XT cranks, GX mech and shifters
    34T oval ring an 11-42 cassette, 10-spd
    DT 481 front and i30 carbon rear
    Ikon rear and Barzo front ( both 2.35)
    Haven 35 carbon bar, -17 deg 60mm stem
    Prologo saddle, no dropper
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Endurance bike weight-20170707_190143.jpg  

    Endurance bike weight-2017-12-01-16.24.12.jpg  

    Last edited by NH Mtbiker; 1 Week Ago at 08:00 AM.
    14 GT Zaskar 9r
    15 Moto Night Train
    08 BMC Trailfox
    06 Cannondale Rush
    99 GT XCR
    93 Raleigh MT 200

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kfb66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by TiGeo View Post
    The Niner RKT RDO (complete build) is now a 120 f/90r bike. With the 34, beefier carbon wheels, non-WW tires, and a dropper, it's 25.5. Perfect racer/trail bike that isn't a low/long/slack/endurobro bike. The 34 and dropper are going to add 2 pounds but worth it as I am finding out.
    I had/have plans to build an RKT this winter. Going with a full-XT build, SID RLC 100mm fork, and Roval Carbon SL wheels. I have everything except the fork and Niner parts at this point. The pending bankruptcy issue has me delaying the build a bit, AND looking at other options for a good XC f/s bike ... but I'm NOT a fan of the new longer, lower, slacker geometry, which pretty much everyone else has switched to. I much prefer a higher BB with slightly quicker steering. So far the RKT9 seems to be th ebest fit for my needs, but I would love to see Yeti bring out an updated ASR to compare!

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Stalkerfiveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    873
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    Also a dropper is a pound. Factor that into discussion
    But to be fair, it's a pound but only an additional 1/2 pound. Since most carbon posts are in the 210-220 gram range. If you can live with 125mm drop, Fall Line has a 426 gram dropper. So the ~200 gram difference technically only "adds" ~1/2 a pound over a lightweight carbon seat post.
    In serving the wicked, expect no reward, and be thankful if you escape injury for your pains.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Stalkerfiveo View Post
    But to be fair, it's a pound but only an additional 1/2 pound. Since most carbon posts are in the 210-220 gram range. If you can live with 125mm drop, Fall Line has a 426 gram dropper. So the ~200 gram difference technically only "adds" ~1/2 a pound over a lightweight carbon seat post.
    Totally here you. I was meaning like on a new build sheet not so much as swapping posts. I am buying that Drop line as soon as i can sell my reverb that came on the bike. I have a syntace p6 carbon also which is i believe about exactly what you stated 220gms. I dont notice the difference and frankly dont care. A dropper and fox 34 turns my hardtail into something amazing. Its literally adding 5 pounds with the f34, dropper, 800gm tires, over rigid, carbon post, 650gm tires. Its not even noticeable the extra weight where as before the bike would probably be so light it just bounces around.

    Its probably 23 with a 2.5lb frame and no gears lol. Feels like a monster truck.


    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by kfb66 View Post
    I had/have plans to build an RKT this winter. Going with a full-XT build, SID RLC 100mm fork, and Roval Carbon SL wheels. I have everything except the fork and Niner parts at this point. The pending bankruptcy issue has me delaying the build a bit, AND looking at other options for a good XC f/s bike ... but I'm NOT a fan of the new longer, lower, slacker geometry, which pretty much everyone else has switched to. I much prefer a higher BB with slightly quicker steering. So far the RKT9 seems to be th ebest fit for my needs, but I would love to see Yeti bring out an updated ASR to compare!
    Dont change plans, when you ride a Niner its easy to forget all the white noise. Believe me, i had my day with Niner on a warranty, oh well. That bike is a weapon, of the highest caliber.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kfb66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    Dont change plans, when you ride a Niner its easy to forget all the white noise. Believe me, i had my day with Niner on a warranty, oh well. That bike is a weapon, of the highest caliber.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    I have to say I've been VERY happy with my previous Niners (Jet9, Air9 RDO), and I've heard nothing but positive feedback regarding the RKT9. That said I'd love it if Yeti had an XC offering to compare. I've never ridden a Yeti, but they sound like great bikes!

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by kfb66 View Post
    I have to say I've been VERY happy with my previous Niners (Jet9, Air9 RDO), and I've heard nothing but positive feedback regarding the RKT9. That said I'd love it if Yeti had an XC offering to compare. I've never ridden a Yeti, but they sound like great bikes!
    Yeti will never have a bike to compare. Youll be waiting the rest of your life. Anything from Yeti will be a longggg way off from the Niner. Depending on what you seek that could be a good or bad thing.

    Niner still builds samurai warrior XC bikes. Most new bikes are a big club you just hit anything with. If you want to be on rails get the RKT. If you want to be a landcruiser you can wait for some bike Yeti will make that will be NOTHING like a 100f/90r xc bike with a 7 in the hta. More like some 68deg bike like the Scott spark.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kfb66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    518
    Quote Originally Posted by LaneDetroitCity View Post
    Yeti will never have a bike to compare. Youll be waiting the rest of your life. Anything from Yeti will be a longggg way off from the Niner. Depending on what you seek that could be a good or bad thing.

    Niner still builds samurai warrior XC bikes. Most new bikes are a big club you just hit anything with. If you want to be on rails get the RKT. If you want to be a landcruiser you can wait for some bike Yeti will make that will be NOTHING like a 100f/90r xc bike with a 7 in the hta. More like some 68deg bike like the Scott spark.

    Sent from my SM-G360P using Tapatalk
    You're probably right about that. Niner does build some killer XC bikes ... I just hope they continue building them long term!

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brentos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,635
    Endurance bike weight-img_2173.jpg
    Quote Originally Posted by davesupra View Post
    Salsa Horsethief. I have a 130mm pike on the front and it has 120 on the back. 68 deg head angle. I love mine.
    I had the same, although the HT angle actually measured 67.5 deg. Great bike, and got her under 25lb to keep it competitive, and did well racing on that bike. Was great for long, rough races.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by brentos View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2173.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	479.4 KB 
ID:	1170998

    I had the same, although the HT angle actually measured 67.5 deg. Great bike, and got her under 25lb to keep it competitive, and did well racing on that bike. Was great for long, rough races.
    What are you on now?

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brentos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,635
    Norco Revolver FS 29er w/ a 120mm Fox F34. Both bikes are fantastic. All things considered, I think I like the Norco better, it is a a bit lighter, and more lively. But it does give up a bit compared to the longer travel bikes on long, fast, rough descents.

    Endurance bike weight-img_4992.jpg

Similar Threads

  1. Yeti ASRc Weight Reduction - XC and Endurance
    By Le Duke in forum Weight Weenies
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 05-12-2016, 12:16 PM
  2. weight training for endurance racing
    By zach477 in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-10-2014, 08:14 PM
  3. Looking for a saddle for endurance as well as saving some weight.
    By 2gunstwitch in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-23-2014, 10:12 PM
  4. Weight Location on Endurance Rides
    By The Boz in forum Endurance XC Racing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-20-2013, 07:09 AM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-13-2011, 12:00 PM

Members who have read this thread: 295

Posting Permissions

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